(December 27, 2014 at 9:43 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I use logic for other problems, yes. Don't you? Do you have objections to using logic?

I fail to grasp what's logical about religion. And I don't mean that as an attack. It's simply beyond me how anyone could come to the logical conclusion of any god existing. Or let me be more precise, of any caring higher being existing.

Of course I use logic. I try to use nothing else when I'm finding the truth of things. But I don't see any logic in your argument.

You assume that something exists, and then you check if it contradicts reality. If it doesn't, then it exists.

Is that your method? I can't see anything else going on.

I didn't become an atheist for any reason, I've been an atheist my whole life. For one simple reason, no theistic claims have ever met their burden of proof. Or even lifted the burden a millimetre off the ground.

For example, how do I tell which of the thousands of demominations of christianty is the right one? Yours is, I take it? And how do I tell whether God is Yahweh or Allah? Muslims will argue as strongly as you that you are totally wrong.

If we don't have a method to determine what is true and what is made up, we get situations like this.

@ abaris

God is a logical proposition that, because there can be no 'knowledge' of it as such, you are completely free to accept or reject. I don't think it's possible not to consider associated problems, no matter what you choose.

Edit: never mind

Well thanks for the debate, I think I'll sign off there. Although I still have no idea what you're talking about, it has been the most enjoyable and productive discussion with a theist on here to date

(December 27, 2014 at 10:10 am)fr0d0 Wrote: God is a logical proposition that, because there can be no 'knowledge' of it as such, you are completely free to accept or reject.

And that's why we disagree. Based on the above that's entirely emotional from my point of view.

@ Rob

I don't assume it exists. First I discover information, then I assess it. Then I make my choice. When I act upon that choice, I become a Christian.

The logical problem before you is a bare presentation of the God concept in isolation.

I think your burden of proof is non applicable. It's not even the same subject and I can't see how I can even consider it.

My own belief reflects my history. You assume incorrectly that I dismiss other expressions of faith, where I do not. I accept atheism as an expression of exploration too. I don't feel knowledgeable enough to judge who has the best understanding. All I can do is try to do what's right to me.

I've said that logic works on this problem. Can you show me how my logic is wrong? If not, on what grounds are you dismissing it?

I don't think we can get any further, I've explained it as best I can. As far as I can see, you're not using logic at all, you're making decisions based on your emotions.

(December 27, 2014 at 10:14 am)abaris Wrote:

(December 27, 2014 at 10:10 am)fr0d0 Wrote: God is a logical proposition that, because there can be no 'knowledge' of it as such, you are completely free to accept or reject.

And that's why we disagree. Based on the above that's entirely emotional from my point of view.

I don't see anything emotional. I only ever got anything emotional after I'd acted on my understanding. A kind of reassuring burn from feeling something was so right, if that make sense? People put a lot of store in that I guess.

(December 27, 2014 at 8:05 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Humans conceptualise. It's what we do. You can call it man made. But then the entirety of existence AS WE KNOW IT would be man made too.

I added in the bolded and shouted bit to make a point. One of our concepts is reality as it is in itself. We recognize that all of our attempts to describe this universe thing in itself are necessarily gathered by way of our particular sensory/cognitive array. But beneath and beyond our best attempts to describe it is what we posit to be the universe itself which might well reveal other aspects given a different perceptual cognitive array.

So I think it can't be right to say the entirety of existence is man made. Better to say that what we know of it is man filtered. But we assume there is something there beyond our descriptions of it which make some descriptions better than others.

My own suspicion is that making any assumption about a god beyond our conception of it would be a mistake. Our experience of god is really all there is of it. If we find god in every aspect of the universe it is because god is in the filter we use to describe the universe. Where our filters go, there goes god. God isn't out there. It's in here if its anywhere at all.

(December 27, 2014 at 8:05 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Unbelievably there's more to life than science. It's always existed and I certainly didn't invent it lol

What I'm explaining to you is the basic idea of God and how it's worked out. Try it yourself and you'll find it to be true. Humans conceptualise. It's what we do. You can call it man made. But then the entirety of existence would be man made too.

There's a lot of bullshit wrapped up in a mere 67 words.