Why I'm not an Atheist

[Vermanubis]

I just happened to read this bit. If your theory of existence includes the existence of square circles, in my view that is a reductio of your theory.

Excellent catch, but I think I can reconcile it.

A circular square is only physically absurd. There can exist an arbitrary set that can contain the properties of both a circle and a square, it would just be undefined, which speaks to my point that mathematical constructs aren't solely physical, as they can represent things that are physically absurd. Such use of them is largely useless and meaningless, but it still states the point that it <can> exist, just in undefined space where it can't necessarily be predicated.

If this is unclear: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=13956419&postcount=207

In addition to that:

It may not be able to exist as a square and a circle concurrently in the physical world, but its respective properties can exist in the same arbitrary set of properties. If nothing else, this speaks to the distinction between the existential disparity of singularity vs. plurality, i.e. how can it exist in plurality (being proprietary rather than whole), but then once the distinction is made that it's a whole object, how is that distinction possible in a physical world? That distinction would entail a dual nature of singularity and plurality and is thus physically impossible, which entails the metaphysical which I've been arguing for (which I don't need to tell you, since you already said you're a dualist). Your catch did make me rethink my broad wording and was a seemingly solid reductio, but then I remembered the entire premise of my argument: properties versus the whole. My argument still requires a lot of justification and more concrete proofs, but if nothing else came of it, the distinction between plural and whole was made plain as only a metaphysical possibility.

 

[Browny]

Excellent catch, but a failure to specify on my part that a quick amendment can rectify.

The properties of circles and squares are analytically true. But that also means that they are considered whole by definition, i.e. they have a constant set of properties. Two conflicting analytic objects predicating each other is disqualified, because it's invoking two separate objects rather than one whole object.

Though, the specification isn't entirely needed and is only for the sake of simplicity, as a circular square is only physically absurd. There can exist an arbitrary set that can contain the properties of both a circle and a square, it would just be undefined, which speaks to my point that mathematical constructs aren't solely physical, as they can represent things that are physically absurd. Such use of them is largely useless and meaningless, but it still states the point that it <can> exist, just in undefined space where it can't necessarily be predicated.

Ok this is annoying me too much.

Verm, Im an aero eng so I know all about high level maths and physics terms and talk like Sheldon IRL, but it seems you are pushing your use of language so hard into the mathematical world, that its entirely defeating the purpose of what youre trying to say. Im spending more time trying to follow the VERY THIN line you have laid out with your sentence structure, designed to leave absolutely no room for ambiguity, and getting lost in the process because it just takes too long. I admire your knowledge of words, but this is completely crossing the line and defeating the purpose of language entirely.

May I suggest something

Excellent catch, but a failure to specify on my part that a quick amendment can rectify.

Excellent catch, I didnt quite word what I wanted to say correctly, ignore that and Ill explain it in broader and simpler terms.

The properties of circles and squares are analytically true. But that also means that they are considered whole by definition, i.e. they have a constant set of properties. Two conflicting analytic objects predicating each other is disqualified, because it's invoking two separate objects rather than one whole object.

Circles and squares, by definition, are constrained to a set of paramters and a circle is a circle or a square is a square, ONLY when each and all of these parameters are met.
The rest I dont get at all.


Is that what you were saying, in simpler terms? I WANT to be able to understand what youre saying, but you are making it extremely difficult and I dont understand why. We arent talking about String Theory here, its just too much.

 

[Cassio]

All references to physical should be replaced by empirical. In the end it might mean the same thing but it seems to be a bit misleading.

Some people here have too much faith in empirical science. Most major scientific advances in the last century, particularly in physics, have come from its theoretical branch with its experimental counter-parts leagues behind. Nowadays we only hope that we can create some experiment to confirm the theories we're able to conceive, but it seems like were quickly approaching our empirical limitations as humans experimentally and possibly even theoretically. This doesnt mean that truth and knowledge cease to exist beyond our capacity to inductively or even deductively obtain them, it just means we arent gods.

However its not fair to dismiss what we are able to deductively create simply because we cant empirically prove it (including a circle square ). It simply means that whether it be mathematics, science, ethics, or religion we have our empirical limits. Sometimes however, every once in awhile, we catch a lucky break and find ways to link our deductive reasoning with 'real world' /empirical evidence. Quite honestly its amazing we know anything about the real world at all.

I hope this helps to explain theistic belief in simpler language. Verm and Dre. can correct me if they disagree.

 

[Dre89]

Physics will never show that the universe can be caused without God because that's a metaphysical question.

If you say a physics model doesn't need to be caused, then you're ascribing ontological properties to it which aren't scientific, but metaphysical. It's a metaphysical question.

The only thing physics disproves are God theories which commit to specific models of physics, if you can show that those models are wrong.

 

[GwJ]

Can you please define metaphysics for me? I see it used all the time by you, but I've never actually known what it meant.

 

[Vermanubis]

Ok this is annoying me too much.

Verm, Im an aero eng so I know all about high level maths and physics terms and talk like Sheldon IRL, but it seems you are pushing your use of language so hard into the mathematical world, that its entirely defeating the purpose of what youre trying to say. Im spending more time trying to follow the VERY THIN line you have laid out with your sentence structure, designed to leave absolutely no room for ambiguity, and getting lost in the process because it just takes too long. I admire your knowledge of words, but this is completely crossing the line and defeating the purpose of language entirely.

What does language have to do with it? Pure math and applied math are different animals. You can know as much as you like about applied maths, but applied maths hardly even bother with things like the logics, which is where my argument stems from. In discussions this involved, that kind of terminology is <needed> so that there is, as you said, zero ambiguity. If I were trying to appeal to an audience, I probably wouldn't have a need to be so specific, but I'm appealing to a person who I have faith <does> understand each word I'm using in this context.

Circles and squares, by definition, are constrained to a set of paramters and a circle is a circle or a square is a square, ONLY when each and all of these parameters are met.
The rest I dont get at all.

My argument is that the properties of a circle and square can be represented by arbitrary numbers and exist in the same arbitrary set. The terms "circle" and "square" are not arbitrary, because they designate something specific and are well-defined, i.e. true by definition. An arbitrary set of numbers is not bound to anything because without a designation, it isn't predicated, and therefore bears at least vestigial existence as being an object whose properties are contained in a set, but a set that whose physical representation is physically absurd. It <does> sound ridiculous, but it's entirely true. I hate to use the BT paradox again, but it's absurd in the same way the paradox is. One thing can't be two things at the same time, but the paradox, granted with axiomatic agreement, makes it so thanks to the arbitrariness of numerical representation and to the proprietary distinctions that sets make. The question is begged: why can't one arbitrarily plug in the numerical values of a square and a circle into an arbitrary set/collection? You clearly can, but it only becomes a problem when predicated. So the properties can exist, but the defined whole may not be able to in a meaningful way.

Is that what you were saying, in simpler terms? I WANT to be able to understand what youre saying, but you are making it extremely difficult and I dont understand why. We arent talking about String Theory here, its just too much.

In so many words, yes, that's what I said. As for the string theory bit, we're talking about things that are indeed equally confusing and involved.

 

[MuraRengan]

You are saying something that can't be explained, like paradoxes that are illogical, should be solved by something illogical and can't be explained. If things were as you say they are, that'd be a paradox, we would have made a full circle for no reason.




And I've already repeated ad naseum as to how logic DOES proceed everything, and you haven't given a good reason why it could not. Think about how we must define existence, as something physical (that follows physics) and something logical (a square circle could not exist, no matter what). Before we can even think about the physics of something, it first has to be approved of whether or not it is logically conceivable because that reigns over all things, even over your own dogma that tries to reconcile the illogical things you find, although unfortunately your answer does nothing. If it isn't logical, that step by step in a syllogistic manner, that some sort of God made us, then in NO conceivable way can it happen, even if it breaks our laws of physics. You see, even you aren't putting physical over logic, because making the claim something can't physically do something, that implies it wouldn't logically happen. If logic took the backseat, we could just say the Big Bang started itself because something inexplicable needed to happen, you never addressed why it had to be God to do this inexplicable thing, you only have that idea in your mind because humans generally want to just attribute God with such things without realizing the implications.



Did you know paradoxes are something resolved by advancements and furthering of study and knowledge? If not, then this is pointless. I'm sorry, but you aren't capable of making such absolutely bold statements, big claims require big evidence, and considering no other scientist goes, "Well, our theory of the Big Bang, assumed correct, it just seems to through everything we have learned out the window." I'm sorry, it isn't happening, and even if it can, it can't be assumed to do so. Assumptions are not good.



I'm grasping? You didn't say anything about dimensions until now, and you didn't even express the slightest knowledge of it. And... you're the one who brought up how other dimensions cause things, not me. I personally am not fond of the idea because that is another area of science where bold assumptions have to be made, and unlike you I refuse to do that.




When you say that it is possible for things to not go from first to second, then please explain what other methods can it go. Second to first? Circular? Something? Anything? I don't get it, no one could.

Holder, your stance on everything being predicated in logic is defeated by the fact that I've pointed out twice that my paradoxes show how a completely logical perspective of existence is ultimately illogical. I have made this clear to you twice already, and twice you have purposefully ignored it. I'm not interested in responding to you until you address these matters. You say everything is predicated in logic, but I've already shown with logic that existence without supernaturals is illogical. You've done absolutely nothing to suggest that the logic in my paradoxes is wrong, and I have asked you specifically to do that. As long as the logic follows, it should be true. Isn't that your belief? Isn't your belief that logic triumphs all? If so, then defend yourself, it shouldn't be a hard task if you have th elogic on your side.

There are infinite amount of possible explanations to the unknown things we or science doesn't or maybe even can't ( you can't really know this) ever explain. Why, from all of them, you have to jump to God? What implies, that it has to be God? Yeah it fills some holes for you, but how many holes does it really generate when you take it? People are just settled with those holes, because it's the all-mighty God, who has his ways, perhaps? I think people jump to God because when doing so they allow themself to be satisfied with the issue and with the holes it brings. It's an easy explanation that people have just randomly generated in their mind imo.

If you read any of my arguments, you'll know that I use the term "God" as a qualifier for the idea of supernatural entities. That's a general term for those inifnite amount of possible explanations you're talking about, not the specifically "all-mighty" Christian God. I shouldn't've been so careless with my wording.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Okay, so you aren't responding to anything I have said, that is fine. But you still ignore the fact that yes the statement, "The Universe exists" is true, and that "We don't know the first cause to the Big Bang theory" is also true, but to solve it you are trying to add the same problem you have with the Big Bang on top of it, which only creates the problem in the same way. I don't know how to keep repeating myself further until you get that point. I have never encountered someone who would sincerely say that illogical things must exist so things can be logical, even just recently several people have posted about your bias, you simply just want to believe it, there is no pushing with you, and that is a shame. No one has even stood up for what you are saying, no one can possibly get what you are talking about.

Once more, your very need to have an explanation for a true statement, such as the universe exists, is the same logic that slices your theory apart. You don't answer it by saying that something had to do it, and since we can't give a good explanation right now, you say it is something beyond explanation.

The Universe exists.
We cannot explain how the Universe exists right now.
The Universe cannot be explained right now.

That is all you get at best. You have nothing that can allow you to break the Principle of Sufficient Reasoning, especially because you want to satisfy it. And once MORE, even under the assumption that the Universe's creation is nonsensical, you have no idea how that assumes God, the Universe might as well have ascended its own rules illogical, or had a dimension interference which you suggested earlier ex post facto but had no idea what you were saying, you just wanted to protect your own bias. It is okay to be wrong. You break the Principle of Sufficient Reasoning, commit the "fallacy of expediency", a "false dilemma" fallacy, absence of evidence equals evidence of absence fallacy, who knows what else.

 

[MuraRengan]

Okay, so you aren't responding to anything I have said, that is fine.

I didn't respond to what you posted because you didn't respond to a very critical point in my argument. Furthermore, you misunderstand my argument, which revolves around that very critical point that I notice you are very willfully ignoring. So now, I will break down what you have posted here, what you THINK, my argument is, and clarify what my argument is, and then assert AGAIN that you respond to my most critical point.

But you still ignore the fact that yes the statement, "The Universe exists" is true, and that "We don't know the first cause to the Big Bang theory" is also true, but to solve it you are trying to add the same problem you have with the Big Bang on top of it, which only creates the problem in the same way.

Incorrect. My problem is not with the Big Bang theory, allow me to go back several pages and quote my own argument.

Our existence is tied to a plane of reality that is bound by a sense of "first" and "second." It is how we identify time as "now" and "then", and how we identify space as "here" and "there." All of our understanding of everything ultimately boils down to some form of understanding first and second. One of these is cause and effect, which the scientific method is all about. Therefore, it is only logical that every "second" we approach scientifically has a "first" to its being. This is essentially cause and effect. However, even the firsts are subject to other firsts, and causes subject to other causes. This means that everything can be explained, and every explanation has an explanation. So it literally doesn't make sense for a thing to exist that cannot be explained.

However, this creates a problem: If everything can be explained, this means that, logically and scientifically speaking, there should an infinite amount of regressing basics to everything, an infinite amount of explanations to discover and understand. This is, in itself, does not make sense, because it lacks explanation for existence as it is. If there is an infinite amount of regressing basics to the world, how can these basics compound on each other to reach a specific point in any form of existence? I have explained this in the past through this paradox:

You have a recipe for a cake that requires an infinite amount of ingredients. Will the cake ever exist? No. However, you have another cake, but it was made from an infinite amount of ingredients. How is this possible?

Now replace cake with earth, matter, atoms, or any physical entity in those paradoxes and you'll see exactly what my point is.

Science and reason necessarily implies an infinite explanation to everything, but ultimately, infinite explanation leads all of existence to be nonsensical because it implies that not just one, but every traceable physical entity took an infinite amount of regressing basics to create. This is why science ultimately confounds itself. If you expect science to explain everything, you're looking at a never ending process. Using science to understand origins leads to several, very problematic infinity paradoxes that simply cannot be true.

Thus in our plane of existence, we see that science and reason has its limits, and that ultimately, in order to eliminate the problem of infinity (infinitely regressing time, infinitely proportionate space, infinitely regressing causes and effects) and make sense out of existence, a non-scientific approach much be proposed. We must assume, as science cannot, that something(s) in this realm are without scientific or reasonable explanation, and that they are subject to some other realm of understanding that is outside the jurisdiction of science and reason, so that we can clearly establish a "first" that is not also a "second". It is absolutely necessary to avoid infinity paradoxes. Therefore, the ultimate explanation it MUST be irrational, illogical, and unscientific, such that in understanding it we do not get trapped in regressing infinities.

The bolded red is where you "seem" (and I put seem in quotes because I believe that you do understand my argument, you're just purposely trying to confound it to the audience) to misunderstand my argument. See, I don't care whether or not the Big Band theory can be explained by science. The fact to the matter is, regardless of what specifically the phenomena in the universe is, at least one of them, not necessarily the Big Bang, will be unexplainable by science. How do I know this? Well, as I have explained already, the paradox I have described (bolded yellow) proves, through logic (bolded blue), that the universe does not exist in a state of infinitely regressing basics because that would be
illogical. However, another issue stemming from that, which I pointed out, is that the scientifically unexplainable phenomena which I have proven to exist must be explained in some way that is not scientific. This, in itself, supposes supernatural entities.

I don't know how to keep repeating myself further until you get that point. I have never encountered someone who would sincerely say that illogical things must exist so things can be logical,

Now I'm going to prove to you why there is nothing wrong with the bold.

First of all, as I have stressed to you several times already, which you have completely ignored: My paradox proves that without supernatural entities, there must be some phenomena in the universe that is unexplainable by science. Thus, it is automatically given that if you reject supernatural entities then existence itself is illogical because of the unexplainables. I've said this already, but, again, you've been ignoring it.

Now, on to explain why illogical entities make existence logical. See, there's a clear difference between the natural world and the supernatural world, that being, that the supernatural world is, well, supernatural (idk how better to put it.) Things in the natural world HAVE TO FOLLOW A THE SPECIFIC SYSTEM OF LOGIC THAT WE LIVE BY, (aka, the law of causality) however, the supernatural world is not beholden to the system of logic that we live in, therefore, the property of being supernatural means being illogical. However, in our own reality I have proven, through the paradox, that there are phenomena that violate our own system of logic, the unexplainables. Therefore the only possible, logical, explanation for their existence, is something which is not beholden to our system of logic, something supernatural, something illogical.

However, the fact that that which explains the unexplainables is illogical is immaterial, because, gasp, the supernatural is not beholden to our system of logic. The only thing that requires logic to exist is that which exists in the natural world, thus the unexplainables are the only things that need to be logical, not the supernatural thing which created it. Therefore, the fact that the supernatural cause to the unexplainables is illogical is completely IMMATERIAL.

Everything else in your post is now refuted. And fyi, no one has come to your aid either, you're the only one who has addressed my points specifically, and I would invite anyone else who thinks there's a flaw in my logic to give it a shot.


But for the last goddamn time, even if you deny the supernatural, the very existence of the universe is still illogical because of the unexplainables that my paradox proves exist. I have told you the secret to shutting me up several times, and that is that you must find a flaw with my paradox or the conclusions drawn from it. You have ignored this single point 3 times.

 

[Dre89]

Can you please define metaphysics for me? I see it used all the time by you, but I've never actually known what it meant.

It's prety hard to define, but a general definition would be to say it's the study of the fundamental nature of reality. You can always look it up on Wikipedia, or read entries on it on the online (and free) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Ontology, a sub branch of metaphysics, is the study of being. So when you say that a being doesn't need to be caused, you're ascribing an ontological property to it, because it's a property relating to the nature of its existence.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I didn't respond to what you posted because you didn't respond to a very critical point in my argument. Furthermore, you misunderstand my argument, which revolves around that very critical point that I notice you are very willfully ignoring.

Yes, I feel we can reach an end to this by me ignoring you. *Sarcasm*

The bolded red is where you "seem" (and I put seem in quotes because I believe that you do understand my argument, you're just purposely trying to confound it to the audience) to misunderstand my argument.

That belief has no proof, I thought we've gone over not making assumptions? It is illogical.

See, I don't care whether or not the Big Band theory can be explained by science. The fact to the matter is, regardless of what specifically the phenomena in the universe is, at least one of them, not necessarily the Big Bang, will be unexplainable by science at this present moment.

The bold words are to correct you here. We have no idea how it exactly went down, you're doing that assuming thing again. I know there is a law of causality, and to be quite blunt, you have not been the first to propose confusion as to how things begin if there is a cause for everything, it has been around for quite some time. Again though, you break all of those logical fallacies by assuming that science cannot explain everything, and the sentence you have said that is underlined, if the Big Bang theory is explained by science, then I am afraid everything you have said completely doesn't make sense, because what you are advocating goes under the assumption that it cannot be explained, and to explain it, there must be something else that can't be explained.

How do I know this? Well, as I have explained already, the paradox I have described (bolded yellow) proves, through logic (bolded blue), that the universe does not exist in a state of infinitely regressing basics because that would be
illogical. However, another issue stemming from that, which I pointed out, is that the scientifically unexplainable phenomena which I have proven to exist must be explained in some way that is not scientific. This, in itself, supposes supernatural entities.

I appreciate the larger letters, I was having trouble reading. XD Though, before I go on, I must say that, once again, it doesn't assume theism even under supernatural properties, so there is still no further reason to believe in a God than not, so I'd suggest going back to atheism if this is the only thing pulling you away from it, because that is a misconception. I have already said it, but again, there is no reason a godly being has to have been the supernatural or "other-dimensional" interference. None, in fact it sounds much less likely, and you have not proposed anything about a God existence this entire thread. Once more, you're better off (perhaps the best statement if you are to believe in the supernatural cause) is that the universe itself did something supernatural, and nothing else.

First of all, as I have stressed to you several times already, which you have completely ignored: My paradox proves that without supernatural entities, there must be some phenomena in the universe that is unexplainable by science. Thus, it is automatically given that if you reject supernatural entities then existence itself is illogical because of the unexplainables. I've said this already, but, again, you've been ignoring it.

Ah, you caught me again on the ignoring! (But not really). Though, I must say you do it as well, since I've already said that if any syllogistic system you can surmise that can be valid and say a supernatural entity made the universe, but because you have the supernatural entity involved in it, that, by your own words, it is still illogical. Premises to reach the conclusion can follow, but it only creates a whole different problem. If things have to follow as you are trying to make them, then that simply means we need to go out and find it instead of saying it isn't there. I do respect your drive to accept any answer that you can find, but like everyone is saying, you don't need to sacrifice anything to simply say we are learning still, learning is fun and never fails.

Now, on to explain why illogical entities make existence logical. See, there's a clear difference between the natural world and the supernatural world, that being, that the supernatural world is, well, supernatural (idk how better to put it.) Things in the natural world HAVE TO FOLLOW A THE SPECIFIC SYSTEM OF LOGIC THAT WE LIVE BY, (aka, the law of causality) however, the supernatural world is not beholden to the system of logic that we live in, therefore, the property of being supernatural means being illogical. However, in our own reality I have proven, through the paradox, that there are phenomena that violate our own system of logic, the unexplainables. Therefore the only possible, logical, explanation for their existence, is something which is not beholden to our system of logic, something supernatural, something illogical.

Well first off, we live in the natural world, you are only proposing a vague supernatural world that you yourself aren't trying to explain. You see, although yes supernatural logic can be different, but there would still be a supernatural logic, it is like what we were saying about no such thing as transcending logic, that is true, but something could spark something with supernatural logic that is different than the natural logic and get the latter going, although it would be hard to explain how two different sets of logic interacting with each other, and I would actually have fun trying to explain that simply to see if it makes sense, although I am not skilled enough to construct something such as that, but in such a method as I have proposed, it WOULD be logical, because that would be what happens when two heterogeneous systems collide = what we have now. Now THAT would have me on board, but again, strange to even conceive.

Everything else in your post is now refuted. And fyi, no one has come to your aid either, you're the only one who has addressed my points specifically, and I would invite anyone else who thinks there's a flaw in my logic to give it a shot.

By people going out and refuting you, that equals people aiding me because that is what I am doing, and they don't really differ in what they are saying with me, I am simply the only one thinking it is worth the time to try and help you. Though, it seems I am upsetting you, and I apologize for that, I am not trying to accomplish that.

Can you please define metaphysics for me? I see it used all the time by you, but I've never actually known what it meant.

It has been used nonstop here, and not unequivocally I might add, which is a big fallacy, so much to the point that I am no longer discussing outside of the poster's topic because it has now removed my sight of what anyone is trying to prove since it changes at a whim. It has been used as ways to define physical entities, like if something is a necessary or contingent existence, so it isn't anything physical but is like "adjectives categorizing ontological properties" basically, and it has also been swapped out with "science of beyond the physical" in this thread, which means non-physical science.

 

[MuraRengan]

That belief has no proof, I thought we've gone over not making assumptions? It is illogical.

Are you saying the argument is illogical? If so, point out exactly what the flaw is with my logic. As far as I'm concerned, the logic is enough proof. The universe functions under logic, so one can use logic to understand truths about the universe.

The bold words are to correct you here. We have no idea how it exactly went down, you're doing that assuming thing again. I know there is a law of causality, and to be quite blunt, you have not been the first to propose confusion as to how things begin ifcal? there is a cause for everything, it has been around for quite some time. Again though, you break all of those logical fallacies by assuming that science cannot explain everything, and the sentence you have said that is underlined, if the Big Bang theory is explained by science, then I am afraid everything you have said completely doesn't make sense, because what you are advocating goes under the assumption that it cannot be explained, and to explain it, there must be something else that can't be explained.

1. Your correction is poorly based in that you've forgotten the part where my conclusion makes it IMPOSSIBLE for science to explain the unexplainables. It's not an issue of time, it's an issue of possibility.

2. I'm not assuming that science can't explain everything, I've proven it. I won't waste time repeating the proof to you, go read it.

3. I never once advocated that the big bang theory couldn't be explained.

I appreciate the larger letters, I was having trouble reading. XD Though, before I go on, I must say that, once again, it doesn't assume theism even under supernatural properties, so there is still no further reason to believe in a God than not, so I'd suggest going back to atheism if this is the only thing pulling you away from it, because that is a misconception. I have already said it, but again, there is no reason a godly being has to have been the supernatural or "other-dimensional" interference. None, in fact it sounds much less likely, and you have not proposed anything about a God existence this entire thread. Once more, you're better off (perhaps the best statement if you are to believe in the supernatural cause) is that the universe itself did something supernatural, and nothing else.

You mistake me. I never set out to prove God. I set out to prove the supernatural. I could never prove that any specific God exists, but then again, I don't really need to. Though the existence of the supernatural does not automatically mean that God, the Christian one I believe in, exists, it definitely opens up the possibility. Personally, I don't think the Christian God as described by the church adequately represents the supernatural force that interfered with the natural world, but at the same time I have no way really of knowing at all. The fact that the supernatural opens up the possibility of what I understand to be God, I'll never, ever be an atheist. Maintaining atheism after acknowledging the existence of the supernatural is, well, silly IMO.

Btw, you're incorrect about the supernatural assuming theism. Check it:

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

A deity is a recognized preternatural or supernatural immortal being

Deities, by definition, are supernatural, so whatever supernatural force causes the unexplainables fits that definition.

Ah, you caught me again on the ignoring! (But not really). Though, I must say you do it as well, since I've already said that if any syllogistic system you can surmise that can be valid and say a supernatural entity made the universe, but because you have the supernatural entity involved in it, that, by your own words, it is still illogical. Premises to reach the conclusion can follow, but it only creates a whole different problem. If things have to follow as you are trying to make them, then that simply means we need to go out and find it instead of saying it isn't there. I do respect your drive to accept any answer that you can find, but like everyone is saying, you don't need to sacrifice anything to simply say we are learning still, learning is fun and never fails.

Put simply, the supernatural's involvement with the natural world doesn't mean that the supernatural follow's the natural world's rules. The situation could be that the supernatural can affect things in the natural world without needing to meed natural logical criteria. Neither of us have any way of knowing any more than what is evident, which is that supernatural interference occurred at least once.

I'm not accepting any answer I find, I'm looking for as much truth as I can. You're right, I am learning, and by using logic I've learned a lot.

Well first off, we live in the natural world, you are only proposing a vague supernatural world that you yourself aren't trying to explain. You see, although yes supernatural logic can be different, but there would still be a supernatural logic, it is like what we were saying about no such thing as transcending logic, that is true, but something could spark something with supernatural logic that is different than the natural logic and get the latter going, although it would be hard to explain how two different sets of logic interacting with each other, and I would actually have fun trying to explain that simply to see if it makes sense, although I am not skilled enough to construct something such as that, but in such a method as I have proposed, it WOULD be logical, because that would be what happens when two heterogeneous systems collide = what we have now. Now THAT would have me on board, but again, strange to even conceive.

1. I don't need to explain the supernatural world, I just needed to prove its existence. Even if I did need to explain the supernatural world I couldn't because by virtue of not following the same logic as the natural world, it's not something a human could ever entirely grasp.

2. Your speculations about supernatural logic's interaction with natural logic are valid, but don't really change anything.

By people going out and refuting you, that equals people aiding me because that is what I am doing, and they don't really differ in what they are saying with me, I am simply the only one thinking it is worth the time to try and help you. Though, it seems I am upsetting you, and I apologize for that, I am not trying to accomplish that.

I don't recall anyone refuting me. Some folks made inaccurate comments about my position that showed that they didn't read my arguments, but none have honestly refuted anything. Again, I gave you the keys to refuting me: refute the paradoxes.

But as far as I'm concerned here we are no longer in disagreement. You seem to understand why I believe in the supernatural, and your comments do not lead me to believe that you think my logic is wrong. Where we differ is in whether or not logic alone is enough to establish a truth about the natural world, and even though I believe I'm correct I honestly don't know how I would argue it to you. But I'm not here to try to convince you, I'm just putting my perspective and logic out there because I think it's something unique and valid.

 

[Theftz22]

Excellent catch, but I think I can reconcile it.

A circular square is only physically absurd. There can exist an arbitrary set that can contain the properties of both a circle and a square, it would just be undefined, which speaks to my point that mathematical constructs aren't solely physical, as they can represent things that are physically absurd. Such use of them is largely useless and meaningless, but it still states the point that it <can> exist, just in undefined space where it can't necessarily be predicated.

If this is unclear: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=13956419&postcount=207

In addition to that:

It may not be able to exist as a square and a circle concurrently in the physical world, but its respective properties can exist in the same arbitrary set of properties. If nothing else, this speaks to the distinction between the existential disparity of singularity vs. plurality, i.e. how can it exist in plurality (being proprietary rather than whole), but then once the distinction is made that it's a whole object, how is that distinction possible in a physical world? That distinction would entail a dual nature of singularity and plurality and is thus physically impossible, which entails the metaphysical which I've been arguing for (which I don't need to tell you, since you already said you're a dualist). Your catch did make me rethink my broad wording and was a seemingly solid reductio, but then I remembered the entire premise of my argument: properties versus the whole. My argument still requires a lot of justification and more concrete proofs, but if nothing else came of it, the distinction between plural and whole was made plain as only a metaphysical possibility.

A set could certainly contain the members "square" and "circle", but the point is that no specific member of the set could have both the properties of "being square" and "being circular". Besides, I'm not talking about a square-circle as some form of abstracta as a member of a set, I mean a concrete object that is both square has circle, that has both 4 sides and 3 sides. Surely you don't want to maintain that that's possible. You would have to deny the logical absolutes. I certainly don't see why you would consider it only physically impossible, what particular physical conditions does it depend on? What physical laws allow for the existence of a concrete square-circle?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Are you saying the argument is illogical? If so, point out exactly what the flaw is with my logic. As far as I'm concerned, the logic is enough proof. The universe functions under logic, so one can use logic to understand truths about the universe.

No my friend, I am was referring to your notion that I was trying to prove you were wrong to some audience and refused to listen to what you are saying, although it was baseless and didn't contribute at all to what was going on at hand.

1. Your correction is poorly based in that you've forgotten the part where my conclusion makes it IMPOSSIBLE for science to explain the unexplainables. It's not an issue of time, it's an issue of possibility.

2. I'm not assuming that science can't explain everything, I've proven it. I won't waste time repeating the proof to you, go read it.

3. I never once advocated that the big bang theory couldn't be explained.

You said you didn't care if the Big Bang was explainable or not, and said you argument ran anyways if it was capable of happening without breaking the foundation of physics and logic, and your point rose from the fact that there has to be something that doesn't follow the rules and doesn't need to be caused, and if the Big Bang fit that description, there'd be no need of something that has an altered logical foundation to interfere.

At any rate, there is a lot about physics, I'll state once more, we don't understand. I know this is the go-to one for this situation, but quantum physics disobeys causality, and there is a whole science called quantum cosmology that actually coincides the creation and the rules that are applied in quantum physics, and to be honest although it isn't precisely understood, it is more understood than what you speak of, and is something you aren't taking account for anyhow (unless it was mentioned previously and I missed it, in that case I apologize). Under the light of that, it is still incredibly strange and fallacious to assume anything.

You mistake me. I never set out to prove God. I set out to prove the supernatural. I could never prove that any specific God exists, but then again, I don't really need to. Though the existence of the supernatural does not automatically mean that God, the Christian one I believe in, exists, it definitely opens up the possibility. Personally, I don't think the Christian God as described by the church adequately represents the supernatural force that interfered with the natural world, but at the same time I have no way really of knowing at all. The fact that the supernatural opens up the possibility of what I understand to be God, I'll never, ever be an atheist. Maintaining atheism after acknowledging the existence of the supernatural is, well, silly IMO.

Well, considering the title of this thread is "Why I'm not an atheist", and you have described you cannot believe in atheism now that you think there are multiple sets of logic (still hasn't been sufficiently proven, especially with the quantum physics point) which doesn't entirely follow. We should stop using the word supernatural, it is deceiving and it will lead you to think of the divine, which we can see demonstrably as you type out that paragraph, you can't resist the urge to turn it into a God. A different set of physics mixing with ours isn't supernatural, because like I've mentioned in my last post, and you didn't resist, it isn't a suspension of anything, it is merely two things mixing. It isn't supernatural, isn't necessarily a living being, divine, anything that you could say about a God. Even immortal, you couldn't know that, it isn't even needed.

Btw, you're incorrect about the supernatural assuming theism. Check it:

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

A deity is a recognized preternatural or supernatural immortal being

Deities, by definition, are supernatural, so whatever supernatural force causes the unexplainables fits that definition.

That still doesn't solve the "False Dilemma" fallacy I mentioned before, that still doesn't mean it is a disjunctive between God or absence of it. I've already said how it can be several other things, and surely you could brainstorm even more, but God is stretching the induction quite a bit.

Put simply, the supernatural's involvement with the natural world doesn't mean that the supernatural follow's the natural world's rules. The situation could be that the supernatural can affect things in the natural world without needing to meed natural logical criteria. Neither of us have any way of knowing any more than what is evident, which is that supernatural interference occurred at least once.

Careful, that is a bad habit God thinking will give you, simply saying it can override anything, it still needs to reconcile with our physics considering the two had a reaction, assuming otherwise treats the second set of physics to be transcendent, and that isn't excusable.

1. I don't need to explain the supernatural world, I just needed to prove its existence. Even if I did need to explain the supernatural world I couldn't because by virtue of not following the same logic as the natural world, it's not something a human could ever entirely grasp.

Now, what you say here in a sense is very true; however, in this case you would need to explain the rules it follows, and how it reacts with ours, because even if you could prove that something inexplicable is needed, it still is just added with all the other theories and possibilities (unknown or researched alike) as to what could have possibly done it. So, the following statement as a result becomes false:

2. Your speculations about supernatural logic's interaction with natural logic are valid, but don't really change anything.

I don't recall anyone refuting me. Some folks made inaccurate comments about my position that showed that they didn't read my arguments, but none have honestly refuted anything. Again, I gave you the keys to refuting me: refute the paradoxes.

Sorry, I used my words poorly, I simply meant several people disliked how you went about your first post, and I wonder if you ever messaged that guy that asked you to do so to talk about his problem with the physics you mentioned, he may say something fruitful, I don't know.

But I'm not here to try to convince you, I'm just putting my perspective and logic out there because I think it's something unique and valid.

And for that I appreciate what you are doing.

 

[Pluvia]

So you're a Catholic but don't follow it's rules? Doesn't that mean you're going to hell?

Not trying to be rude, just genuinely want to know your stance on this.

 

[GwJ]

So you're a Catholic but don't follow it's rules? Doesn't that mean you're going to hell?

Not trying to be rude, just genuinely want to know your stance on this.

Eh, there's no point arguing that anymore. Find me a Catholic (or any member of Christianity) that follows it perfectly and I'll be surprised.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Eh, there's no point arguing that anymore. Find me a Catholic (or any member of Christianity) that follows it perfectly and I'll be surprised.

How does someone perfectly follow a religion that completely contradicts itself halfway through the book.

That's a serious question.

 

[MuraRengan]

So you're a Catholic but don't follow it's rules? Doesn't that mean you're going to hell?

Not trying to be rude, just genuinely want to know your stance on this.

Contrary to popular belief, the Catholic church consciously refrains from dictating what behaviors and actions result in going to hell. The church's policy is that it doesn't know what the criteria for getting into heaven or being sent to hell is at all. Its teachings are more centered around being a good person because you want to be and because you appreciate life given by God. No Catholic would (or should) ever say, "If you do/don't do this, you're going to hell."

The reason Christianity gets the reputation of being ridiculously judgmental is because protestant churches (particularly the baptist) have been known to cast eternal judgements on a lot of behaviors. But there's a big difference between protestant dogma and Catholic dogma in that, (hopefully I'm not being too biased here, this is just my own personal interpretation) most protestant dogma is a skewed, unfounded form of Catholic dogma.

So to answer the question, I don't place a very big importance on the rules because the Church doesn't really say I have to. I participate in the things that I, spiritually, identify with, like going to mass. But things like prayer, I don't really see the point in. And the church doesn't say I'm going to hell if I don't pray.

 

[GwJ]

How does someone perfectly follow a religion that completely contradicts itself halfway through the book.

That's a serious question.

You can't; that's why it's pointless to pursue that avenue.

 

[Vermanubis]

A set could certainly contain the members "square" and "circle", but the point is that no specific member of the set could have both the properties of "being square" and "being circular". Besides, I'm not talking about a square-circle as some form of abstracta as a member of a set, I mean a concrete object that is both square has circle, that has both 4 sides and 3 sides. Surely you don't want to maintain that that's possible. You would have to deny the logical absolutes. I certainly don't see why you would consider it only physically impossible, what particular physical conditions does it depend on? What physical laws allow for the existence of a concrete square-circle?

In said set, each member is elemental, in that which each one is an individual property and represents an arbitrary abstraction of a circular square. Once the circular square is given definition, it enters the realm of logical impossibility, because spatial predicates like "has three sides" are introduced. The properties of a circle and a square can exist in arbitrary togetherness, but it's once their properties are given definition that it becomes absurd.

It all speaks to my point about anything existing Platonically. Even if not possible, the idea can be referenced and still exist in abstract space, even if conception isn't possible. Doesn't mean it's meaningful, logical or valid, but the simple <idea> of it can exist. By predicating a circle as a square with "circular square" you're referencing not a circle and a square separately, but both as one. The idea exists, but the actualization of it may not be possible.

How does someone perfectly follow a religion that completely contradicts itself halfway through the book.

That's a serious question.

Start naming some. It's not very fair to say it contradicts itself then not mention how.

 

[Dre89]

Start naming some. It's not very fair to say it contradicts itself then not mention how.

The book contradicts itself but the theology doesn't.

The book contradicts itself in that if you read the book without reading any additional theology (Protestants believe Scripture alone is the word of God, and somehow believe this isn't logically circular), then it clearly makes contradictions.

Pretty much all the Christian answers to the alleged contradictions are found in theology alone, or require knowledge of something external to the Bible.

Pretty much every neutral who has ever read extended passages of the Bible believes there are contradictions. The only people who don't think there are contradictions are believers, because they mould the theology to adapt to all the problems.

That's basically what theology and faith are. They make people believe in the logically conceivable without showing why those beliefs are more reasonable than alternate scenarios. For example it's logically conceivable that an elephant will charge into my room, but it's irrational to believe that. For me to believe that, I would have to have a reason to believe that the alternate scenarios were unreasonable to believe.

This why Christians who try to rationally justify their faith after already believing it think they always do a sufficient job, because all they do is simply show their beliefs are logically conceivable. They don't have to show why it's more reasonable to believe for example that the universe was deisgned by a good God than to believe it wasn't for the neutral, because they themselves aren't neutrals. They just show it's logically conceivable that the universe was designed by a good God.

For example theologians try to explain the drastic difference in God's behaviour in the OT and NT with OT-NT law theory, and that Jesus fulfills the OT, and somehow catalyses the change in behaviour. None of that is evident in the Scripture itself, the neutral with no education in theology or anything outside the Bible doesn't read the Bible and notice the OT NT law theory. That's why the only people who beleive that theory are theologians, because it's logically conceivable that it's the case, but nothing suggests it is more reasonable for the neutral to believe than the alternate scenarios.

 

[Vermanubis]

The book contradicts itself but the theology doesn't.

The book contradicts itself in that if you read the book without reading any additional theology (Protestants believe Scripture alone is the word of God, and somehow believe this isn't logically circular), then it clearly makes contradictions.

Well, ultimately everything sans analytic truths are based on circular argumentation; the premises just become more accepted as they become more inductively sound, i.e. there've been enough instances invest faith into a given premise. The same goes for Protestant Biblical exegesis. Also, when you say other theologies, that's introducing an external conflict rather than internal. I was asking where any of the Biblical contents contradicted themselves.

Pretty much all the Christian answers to the alleged contradictions are found in theology alone, or require knowledge of something external to the Bible.

How else would one find answers? You're saying that answers are found either Biblically, or externally, so there aren't many other options. o_O

Pretty much every neutral who has ever read extended passages of the Bible believes there are contradictions. The only people who don't think there are contradictions are believers, because they mould the theology to adapt to all the problems.

Are you prepared to make good on such a monumental claim?

That's basically what theology and faith are. They make people believe in the logically conceivable without showing why those beliefs are more reasonable than alternate scenarios. For example it's logically conceivable that an elephant will charge into my room, but it's irrational to believe that. For me to believe that, I would have to have a reason to believe that the alternate scenarios were unreasonable to believe.

While I understand where you're coming from, I strongly disagree. Can you use an example from the Bible that you believe to be logically conceivable, but offers itself no credence?

This why Christians who try to rationally justify their faith after already believing it think they always do a sufficient job, because all they do is simply show their beliefs are logically conceivable. They don't have to show why it's more reasonable to believe for example that the universe was deisgned by a good God than to believe it wasn't for the neutral, because they themselves aren't neutrals. They just show it's logically conceivable that the universe was designed by a good God.

You're using way too many unsubstantiated anecdotes for my taste, Dre. Instead of making up, what seems to be intentionally fallacious arguments, give us a few examples.

For example theologians try to explain the drastic difference in God's behaviour in the OT and NT with OT-NT law theory, and that Jesus fulfills the OT, and somehow catalyses the change in behaviour. None of that is evident in the Scripture itself, the neutral with no education in theology or anything outside the Bible doesn't read the Bible and notice the OT NT law theory. That's why the only people who beleive that theory are theologians, because it's logically conceivable that it's the case, but nothing suggests it is more reasonable for the neutral to believe than the alternate scenarios.

Not evident? Do you mean that as in, no where in the NT does Christ acknowledge the OT and abolish it? Also, nowhere in the Bible, OT or NT, does God demonstrate a difference in behavior aside from restraint, and any instantial discrepancies can be explained.

 

[Dre89]

Well, ultimately everything sans analytic truths are based on circular argumentation; the premises just become more accepted as they become more inductively sound, i.e. there've been enough instances invest faith into a given premise. The same goes for Protestant Biblical exegesis. Also, when you say other theologies, that's introducing an external conflict rather than internal. I was asking where any of the Biblical contents contradicted themselves.

Scriptural exclusivism (SE), which is believing that Scripture is only authority, as opposed the Catholic belief which says that Catholic Tradition is what validates Scripture is logically circular because SE requires Scripture to be self-verifying. That's much more logically fallacious than most beliefs people normally have.

How else would one find answers? You're saying that answers are found either Biblically, or externally, so there aren't many other options. o_O

What I'm saying is that the Bible appears contradictory without external theology. If it was truly the word of God, it wouldn't require external theology to explain alleged biblical contradictions and problems.

The fact that it requires external theology for the Bible to be considered logically conceivable or self defeating basically kills any eligibility it had for bridging the gap between logical conceivability and being the most reasonable belief compared to alternate possibilities.

For example, for the rational neutral to consider the theology to be the word of God, they need reasons to believe it more reasonable to accept it than not accept it. But if you have to refer to theological premises to justify belief in the Bible, then that shows it isn't the more rational belief for the neutral, because theological premises assume the theology to be authority, when the the authority of the theology is what's in question, making the argument logically circular.

I'm not saying the Bible should be self-proving, that'd be logically circular. What I'm saying is that without external theology the Bible is self-disproving, meaning it is only logically conceivable at best, it can't make it to the next step that I explained above.

Are you prepared to make good on such a monumental claim?

The claim isn't that monumental. It's like how the claims that knowledge is attained through both faith and reason equally, or faith alone are only asserted by religious people.

It's one thing to rely on external sources to verify that something is the truth, not doing that is logically fallacious. It's another thing to rely on external agents to verify that the source in question is not self-defeating. The problem is in the case of the Bible, all those external sources are theological, they require belief in the theology first to have any validity.

While I understand where you're coming from, I strongly disagree. Can you use an example from the Bible that you believe to be logically conceivable, but offers itself no credence?



You're using way too many unsubstantiated anecdotes for my taste, Dre. Instead of making up, what seems to be intentionally fallacious arguments, give us a few examples.

The problem of evil and the idea that the universe is designed for humans.

First lets look at the PoE. The world does not appear to be designed by a good God. A neutral doesn't look at the world and think that it is. In fact, this was an internal problem to theism. Theists were trying to answer this question before atheists were writing critiques on it, so theists themselves didn't think the world appeared to be designed by a good God.

The fact that the concept of gratuitous evil exists is simply enough evidence. Gratuitious evil is evil that has no purpose, or leads to no greater good, or at least appears not to. Whether G evil actually exists or not is irrelevant, because the fact is it appears it doesn, otherwise we'd know the purpose of all evils. The fact we don't know shows it appeers evil appears to be G.

Technically, by Christian theology the world isn't supposed to appear to be deisgned by a good God, because according to T the world is corrupt and evil due to the Fall of humanity. So even by Christian theology neutrals aren't supposed to believe the world is designed by a good God.


Let's look at the common defences to the PoE. The two main general ones are the free will defence, and that God has purposes and motives that we don't understand. The first one assumes theology, so it becomes simply logically conceivable. The second one goes back to the G evil point, it's not evident to us that God has a greater purpose for the all the evil, it may be the case he does, but it doesn't appear to be so to us. So this also doesn't go past logical conceivability.

Now onto the universe being designed for us. Let's look at some facts of the universe.

We occupy literally less than .01% of the known universe. Something like 400 billion galaxies have been observed. Probably 99.99% of the known universe is naturally uninhabitable for us.

But let's just look at our own planet. 99% of all animals that have ever existed were extinct before humans even existed. The human race at one point dropped to only thousands in numbers, and came very close to going exitinct itself.

Or let's look at the ocean. 71% of the world is occupied by water. It's said that there is something like 5-6 times more marine wildlife than terrestial life ever to be in existence. The ocean is roughly 35 000m deep. At 200m, sunlight stops penetrating the water, making the water completely dark, rendering the water unseeable for humans. Not only that, but the water pressure becomes too high for humans to survive in. In fact some wildlife down there don't even have colour, because they weren't designed to be perceived by humans. Eve?n the majority of our own planet, let alone our own galaxy, or the entire universe, is naturally inhabitable to humans, yet the neutral is supposed to belive it's more rational that the universe was designed for us?

None of this is reasonable to believe for the neutral. Belief in it requires appeals to theology, which are logically fallacious because the authority of the theology is what's in question.

Not evident? Do you mean that as in, no where in the NT does Christ acknowledge the OT and abolish it? Also, nowhere in the Bible, OT or NT, does God demonstrate a difference in behavior aside from restraint, and any instantial discrepancies can be explained.

The OT God is much more like Greek Gods. He's jealous and wrathful, and commits genocide. He even tells people to stone their siblings to death if they try to seduce you away to other Gods (Deut 13 6-16). There's plenty more examples of things like that.

The NT God basically behaves like Jesus.

There is no mention of why God behaved differently in the two OTs, and why he behaved in a way we are now supposed to consider wrong in the OT. OT NT law theory isn't featured in the Scripture.

 

[Pluvia]

Contrary to popular belief, the Catholic church consciously refrains from dictating what behaviors and actions result in going to hell. The church's policy is that it doesn't know what the criteria for getting into heaven or being sent to hell is at all. Its teachings are more centered around being a good person because you want to be and because you appreciate life given by God. No Catholic would (or should) ever say, "If you do/don't do this, you're going to hell."

The reason Christianity gets the reputation of being ridiculously judgmental is because protestant churches (particularly the baptist) have been known to cast eternal judgements on a lot of behaviors. But there's a big difference between protestant dogma and Catholic dogma in that, (hopefully I'm not being too biased here, this is just my own personal interpretation) most protestant dogma is a skewed, unfounded form of Catholic dogma.

So to answer the question, I don't place a very big importance on the rules because the Church doesn't really say I have to. I participate in the things that I, spiritually, identify with, like going to mass. But things like prayer, I don't really see the point in. And the church doesn't say I'm going to hell if I don't pray.

No I'm pretty sure the Catholic church still dictates things. No sex before marriage is one that springs to mind, and I'm sure there's something about condoms in there too. So, unless these are it's only two rules, do you follow all the things it tells you to do?

I'm wondering because you obviously believe that the big bang was created by your specific deity rather than, say, a sentient AI from the multiverse, or Ra, or the collision of 2 Universes in the 4th dimension, or a unicorn, or (literally anything else), and if you believe it was your deity over all the other infinite possibilities then why do you seem to have such a half-hearted attitude to the rules you need to follow, which there is no room for mistake, lest you go straight to hell?

 

[Dre89]

The Catholic Church does believe it has knowledge on what is hell-worthy and what isn't. The grading of sin shows that, because mortal sins are sins deemed to send you to hell if they are not confessed. People also aren't allowed to take communion if they have unconfessed sins on their soul that are hell-worthy, so the idea that the Cath Church remains agnostic on this issue is completely wrong.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

The Bible does contradict itself internally an innumerable amount of times, just type in list of biblical contradictions, BAM the first site you come across is a long list of internal things. The Book was so poorly conceived and constructed.

Also, I'd like to be explained the Old God and the New God theory, because the discrepancies of the two testaments makes it seem as if the first God is the second God's grumpy cousin or something. But seriously, I don't know how one could justify how one God could be absolutely gut-wrenching and the other significantly less so (although still not perfect), let alone justify the former behavior to begin with.

 

[Teran]

More like God is an impudent little brat in the Old Testament.

 

[MuraRengan]

The Catholic Church does believe it has knowledge on what is hell-worthy and what isn't. The grading of sin shows that, because mortal sins are sins deemed to send you to hell if they are not confessed. People also aren't allowed to take communion if they have unconfessed sins on their soul that are hell-worthy, so the idea that the Cath Church remains agnostic on this issue is completely wrong.

Oh you're right. Idk why I drew a blank at this area, because it is definitely something I should've remembered.

Regardless, the Church does draw a line between catechetical theory and practice. While the Church's chatechism does outline degrees of sin and criteria for going to hell, in practice the Church does not make a definitive judgement on the actions of the person. I.E., is a person dies with unconfessed mortal sins, the Catholic church doesn't say "This person is now in hell," they'd say that they can't answer that question.

No I'm pretty sure the Catholic church still dictates things. No sex before marriage is one that springs to mind, and I'm sure there's something about condoms in there too. So, unless these are it's only two rules, do you follow all the things it tells you to do?

The church doesn't condemn people to hell for having sex before marriage or using condoms.

I'm wondering because you obviously believe that the big bang was created by your specific deity rather than, say, a sentient AI from the multiverse, or Ra, or the collision of 2 Universes in the 4th dimension, or a unicorn, or (literally anything else), and if you believe it was your deity over all the other infinite possibilities then why do you seem to have such a half-hearted attitude to the rules you need to follow, which there is no room for mistake, lest you go straight to hell?

I don't recall ever outlining a specific deity, and I'm pretty sure I didn't because specifiying a deity is something I don't think is possible. When I first came up with the idea of supernatural forces, I too thought that there may be "infinite possibilities" of other deities , but upon further contemplation, specifically human grasp of the supernatural, I decided that its best to take all description of a deity for granted. Being supernatural, there's no real way I could identify and define the characteristics of the deity I believe in, specifically because the way that I understand things hinders on things in my own reality. For example, it could be possible that there are "infinite" possibilities; however, upon further inspection the term "infinite" supposes enumeration, that whatever deity exists can be distinguished and counted, but that's not necessarily true in the supernatural. Enumeration may not be an applicable concept in the supernatural, thus in effect applying "infinite possibilities" may be an invalid statement.

Therefore, identifying "God" as one specific deity instead of another has no real significance to me.

As for why I'm so lukewarm about following the Church's rules, it's because I'm still unsure what to believe. The history of the Church has shown that it is definitely capable of flaw, and to me, that capability exists also in their doctrine. I don't know if all their rules are sound, because, despite the claim of being divinely inspired, the members of the church who ultimately form and revise doctrines have shown time and again that even their doctrines are subject to human error.

The Bible does contradict itself internally an innumerable amount of times, just type in list of biblical contradictions, BAM the first site you come across is a long list of internal things. The Book was so poorly conceived and constructed.

Also, I'd like to be explained the Old God and the New God theory, because the discrepancies of the two testaments makes it seem as if the first God is the second God's grumpy cousin or something. But seriously, I don't know how one could justify how one God could be absolutely gut-wrenching and the other significantly less so (although still not perfect), let alone justify the former behavior to begin with.

The bible has content from 40 different authors writing independently of each other over thousands of years, so I wouldn't consider it a stretch to have inconsistencies.

I've never heard of an Old/New God theory. From what I've learned (and from now on I'll specify that everything I know on the matter comes from a class I took on Catholic History), the Church takes virtually none of the events in the Old testament literally and claims that the descriptions of God and events in the Old Testament are likely heavily influenced by culture and folklore. It's more than likely that most of the stuff that's described in the Old Testament didn't happen. The Old Testament is only really used as moral foundation, not historical fact.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Wait, the Old Testament isn't taken seriously yet they praise the son of the same God talked about in the Old Testament as our savior?

I think one can see my confusion here, yeah?

 

[Dre89]

I've never heard of an Old/New God theory. From what I've learned (and from now on I'll specify that everything I know on the matter comes from a class I took on Catholic History), the Church takes virtually none of the events in the Old testament literally and claims that the descriptions of God and events in the Old Testament are likely heavily influenced by culture and folklore. It's more than likely that most of the stuff that's described in the Old Testament didn't happen. The Old Testament is only really used as moral foundation, not historical fact.

This is the point I was trying to make to Verm. It's not apparent to the neutral with no education in external theology to not take the OT literally.

Also, the only reason why OT isn't supposed to be taken literally is because of the stuff mentioned in it. I guarantee if the OT God was like the NT God, they'd be saying to take the OT literally.

The OT God completely kills the eligibility of the Bible's truth going from logically conceivable to the most reasonable belief. I've asked Christians who aren't aware of the OT God's behaviour if they think he'd behave like that, and they say he wouldn't. If the OT behaviour wasn't featured in the Bible, no Christian would be saying 'The Bible is inconsistent, the OT God needs to be violent, otherwise Jesus coming down and fulfilling the OT makes no sense'.

 

[Pluvia]

The big bang could be scientific and not supernatural. Like I said, it could've been caused by the collision of two universes in the 4th dimension or a sentient and very powerful AI from the multiverse.

Obviously you must hold your deity above every other possibility (which is literally anything you can think of) for some reason, otherwise you just seem pretty agnostic.

 

[Dre89]

The big bang could be scientific and not supernatural. Like I said, it could've been caused by the collision of two universes in the 4th dimension or a sentient and very powerful AI from the multiverse.

Obviously you must hold your deity above every other possibility (which is literally anything you can think of) for some reason, otherwise you just seem pretty agnostic.

God isn't asserted in place of the big bang, he's said to have caused it.

The reasoning stems from two general ideas- that either the physical complexity needs to have a designer, or that the physical needed to be caused by something with completely different ontological properties. That's why God is often said to have properties physical things don't (eg. being non-physical, eternal, omnipotent etc.).

You also have things like that argument from morality, but with regards to the big bang the two above are the two sweeping arguments, and they get much more complex when you break them down.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

The bible has content from 40 different authors writing independently of each other over thousands of years, so I wouldn't consider it a stretch to have inconsistencies.

Then it can't be taken seriously by anyone, nor can it have a possible way to interpret it (not that it does normally, but that's just icing on the impossibility). Not to mention, these discrepancies range from some of the most important aspects of the faith, to God's knowledge of the Universe (being faulty), descriptions of events, and even the behavior of God himself (i.e. saying he cannot lie, then in another instance he deceives humans).

 

[MuraRengan]

Then it can't be taken seriously by anyone, nor can it have a possible way to interpret it (not that it does normally, but that's just icing on the impossibility). Not to mention, these discrepancies range from some of the most important aspects of the faith, to God's knowledge of the Universe (being faulty), descriptions of events, and even the behavior of God himself (i.e. saying he cannot lie, then in another instance he deceives humans).

This is the unfortunate mistake I think a lot of religious skeptics make. From the outside, simply saying "You can't take it seriously because stuff is differently interpreted," may sound like it suffices, but truthfully, you're taking the parameters of the bible into a single dimension. Differences in descriptions of events don't alone make the bible (particularly the Old Testament) invalid. The reason why people still take the bible seriously is because, well, there are some interesting consistencies. That's why there are biblical scholars, this thing requires study, and when one can put the bible in context, a lot of things start to make more sense. If you can consider why the author would write as he does, its easier to understand what's meant to be taken literally and what's fiction.

What's most interesting is that as the bible developed, historical records became more detailed and specific, particularly in the New Testament. The four gospels were written by followers of Jesus, and, unlike the Old Testament there are no major discrepancies in their testimonies of Jesus's life. It's interesting that, in a book with multiple authors and multiple inconsistencies, that at one point four people described the same events the same way. What's more interesting is that these people were part of a group who followed Jesus, one whose existence is historical fact because he was the very first pope.

The New Testament also describes other events which are known historical facts, like the Roman persecution of the early Christians. The fact that these testimonies are backed by historical fact and are corroborated by each makes it really hard to discredit the legitimacy of the historical records written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. If they would tell the truth about the persecutions, there's no reason to believe that they'd lie about the things that they together experienced with Christ. I think it's highly likely that every described event in the New Testament is a true historical event, because all evidence suggests that the gospel writers were writing down what they experienced.

If it's reasonable to assume that the gospel writers aren't just making up a bunch of stuff, then the validity of some of the content in the Old Testament gets a boost too. The reason being is that the Matthew and Luke describe the birth of Christ just as it was prophesied by Isaiah in the Old Testament. This means that Isaiah literally knew the future, and his predictions were corroborated by people who lived in that time. That certainly does a lot for the notion of divine inspiration.

I'll stop speculating here, in case someone has a good objection to it. This all falls more or less into my personal reasons for being a Catholic. But that said, there really is a lot more to the bible than just reading it. There's people who spent their entire lives understanding it and putting it in perspective, and the fact that there are biblical events that identify with known history changes a hell of a lot.

This is the point I was trying to make to Verm. It's not apparent to the neutral with no education in external theology to not take the OT literally.

Also, the only reason why OT isn't supposed to be taken literally is because of the stuff mentioned in it. I guarantee if the OT God was like the NT God, they'd be saying to take the OT literally.

The OT God completely kills the eligibility of the Bible's truth going from logically conceivable to the most reasonable belief. I've asked Christians who aren't aware of the OT God's behaviour if they think he'd behave like that, and they say he wouldn't. If the OT behaviour wasn't featured in the Bible, no Christian would be saying 'The Bible is inconsistent, the OT God needs to be violent, otherwise Jesus coming down and fulfilling the OT makes no sense'.

I see your point, and honestly, I'd like to make the argument that even if the OT God was like the NT God, there would still be reason to believe that the OT is not literal, but honestly the evidence I have in mind is really weak, and I'm not knowledgeable enough in the Old Testament to argue this in detail. However, at the same time, your "guarantee" doesn't exactly push your point forward either. You have a valid point of disbelief, though personally I think there's more reason to not taking the OT literally than just because God is described differently.

 

[Falconv1.0]

This is the unfortunate mistake I think a lot of religious skeptics make. From the outside, simply saying "You can't take it seriously because stuff is differently interpreted," may sound like it suffices, but truthfully, you're taking the parameters of the bible into a single dimension. Differences in descriptions of events don't alone make the bible (particularly the Old Testament) invalid. The reason why people still take the bible seriously is because, well, there are some interesting consistencies. That's why there are biblical scholars, this thing requires study, and when one can put the bible in context, a lot of things start to make more sense. If you can consider why the author would write as he does, its easier to understand what's meant to be taken literally and what's fiction.

What's most interesting is that as the bible developed, historical records became more detailed and specific, particularly in the New Testament. The four gospels were written by followers of Jesus, and, unlike the Old Testament there are no major discrepancies in their testimonies of Jesus's life. It's interesting that, in a book with multiple authors and multiple inconsistencies, that at one point four people described the same events the same way. What's more interesting is that these people were part of a group who followed Jesus, one whose existence is historical fact because he was the very first pope.

The New Testament also describes other events which are known historical facts, like the Roman persecution of the early Christians. The fact that these testimonies are backed by historical fact and are corroborated by each makes it really hard to discredit the legitimacy of the historical records written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. If they would tell the truth about the persecutions, there's no reason to believe that they'd lie about the things that they together experienced with Christ. I think it's highly likely that every described event in the New Testament is a true historical event, because all evidence suggests that the gospel writers were writing down what they experienced.

If it's reasonable to assume that the gospel writers aren't just making up a bunch of stuff, then the validity of some of the content in the Old Testament gets a boost too. The reason being is that the Matthew and Luke describe the birth of Christ just as it was prophesied by Isaiah in the Old Testament. This means that Isaiah literally knew the future, and his predictions were corroborated by people who lived in that time. That certainly does a lot for the notion of divine inspiration.

I'll stop speculating here, in case someone has a good objection to it. This all falls more or less into my personal reasons for being a Catholic. But that said, there really is a lot more to the bible than just reading it. There's people who spent their entire lives understanding it and putting it in perspective, and the fact that there are biblical events that identify with known history changes a hell of a lot.

So if I make a book that mentions a lot of things that actually happened, would you believe my story when I eventually claim my neighbor can shoot laser beams out of his eyes? Because the way I'm reading this, it seems you're saying that they mentioned real historical events, thus everything Jesus did was also real.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

You articulate yourself well and show you logically think about this, but unfortunately a lot of the discrepancies, mistakes, and multiple accounts also take equally in the New Testament as the Old (the only thing the Old really has more of is more immoral/incorrect things). It is quite understandable that the writing became more sophisticated in the New Testament because of advancements in civilization between the two books, although it wasn't a big jump, advances have been made nevertheless.

Historians, and I'm not sure if I have stated this before, a lot of the time also discredit the historical parts of the Bible because they do not much up well at all, and I've even read online that people are not even 100% sure that a dude named Jesus even existed, or perhaps was actually someone from Egypt preaching the monotheistic believe that emerged from those people after much bloodshed from fighting over 42 different Gods until someone combined them into one, etc.

 

[Falconv1.0]

I don't see how you can say that he's thinking logically about it when his big argument is that the Bible mentions stuff that is supposedly historically accurate, thus there's no reason the writers would lie about other stuff or idunno, hallucinate or some ****.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I mean as in he is at least thinking about it, I guess the word "logically" is misleading, my apologies.

 

[MuraRengan]

Falcon, the difference between you and me is that I'm being reasonable. All your attempts to discredit the books are baseless speculation. I give the writers the benefit of the doubt because I see no reason to believe that they would try to deceive. Hallucinations are pretty much out of the questions, because the four gospel writers describe the miracles and other events with Christ in exactly the same way every time, whereas if the were hallucinating there's little chance they'd all see the same thing. To say that they would make stuff up is pure and baseless speculation, especially considering they their writings already identify in fact. You're being obtuse. All the evidence supports that these people had nothing to hide and no reason to lie.

You articulate yourself well and show you logically think about this, but unfortunately a lot of the discrepancies, mistakes, and multiple accounts also take equally in the New Testament as the Old (the only thing the Old really has more of is more immoral/incorrect things). It is quite understandable that the writing became more sophisticated in the New Testament because of advancements in civilization between the two books, although it wasn't a big jump, advances have been made nevertheless.

Historians, and I'm not sure if I have stated this before, a lot of the time also discredit the historical parts of the Bible because they do not much up well at all, and I've even read online that people are not even 100% sure that a dude named Jesus even existed, or perhaps was actually someone from Egypt preaching the monotheistic believe that emerged from those people after much bloodshed from fighting over 42 different Gods until someone combined them into one, etc.

Holder, I can't take you on your word in this matter. You'll need to provide some evidence. An example of these so called discrepancies, mistakes, and multiple accounts, because I don't really trust that you know what you're talking about with regards to the NT.

 

[Falconv1.0]

So if I find another religion that has a book that mentions true historical events with stuff no one can prove to be true or false but with a different God, or just make my own, what's your answer to that.

I'm not being unreasonable when a book tells me a lot of magical **** happened along with morals that completely contradict many parts of the first ****ing half and you're only argument is WELL WHY WOULD ANYONE LIE ABOUT IT.