Is God a logical contradiction?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Are you sure you're reasoning through these terms correctly, using them appropriately, and not inadvertently creating a falsidical?

Personally I've never agreed with the notion of the supernatural; I think the term is often used as a synonym for non-existent. Nevertheless, I do view the notion of God being outside of nature as similar to the way a gamer sits outside the virtual environment he is playing, but can nevertheless interact and have an effect on it. To try to understand the human being by filtering him through "digital laws" of the virtual world is bound to be problematic if not contradictory as well.

No, I don't think that I am using any terms incorrectly. On my view when one talks of Nature one is speaking of existence, all of it, the sum total.  We call it nature when it is seen as a collection of entities acting and interacting with each other according to their natures or identities and according to the Law of Causality.  To speak of something outside of Nature would be to speak of an entity that is outside the concept entity, outside of the Law of identity and outside the Law of causality.  It is wracked with contradictions.  I think you're right to say that the supernatural is a synonym for the non-existent since to exist is to be something specific, to possess identity.  And yet "God" is supposed to transcend all that.  If a god existed "outside of Nature"  it would exist outside of existence and it would bo nothing.   

On your view, the world we live in is analogous to a video game.  I think this is a good analogy given what Christianity has to say about the Universe being a creation.  In a video game, the action is dictated by the programmer who creates the virtual world of the game and by the choices of the player, which in this case would be this fictional god.  The characters in the game (us Humans) would be like puppets.  

On my view however, the Universe is not analogous to a computer game.  Reality is an absolute, and everything is what it is and does what it does independent of any ruling consciousness.

Can't wait to see him back he cartoon universe theory of theism

[John 6IX Breezy]

No, I don't think that I am using any terms incorrectly. On my view when one talks of Nature one is speaking of existence, all of it, the sum total.  We call it nature when it is seen as a collection of entities acting and interacting with each other according to their natures or identities and according to the Law of Causality.  To speak of something outside of Nature would be to speak of an entity that is outside the concept entity, outside of the Law of identity and outside the Law of causality.  It is wracked with contradictions.  I think you're right to say that the supernatural is a synonym for the non-existent since to exist is to be something specific, to possess identity.  And yet "God" is supposed to transcend all that.  If a god existed "outside of Nature"  it would exist outside of existence and it would bo nothing.   

On your view, the world we live in is analogous to a video game.  I think this is a good analogy given what Christianity has to say about the Universe being a creation.  In a video game, the action is dictated by the programmer who creates the virtual world of the game and by the choices of the player, which in this case would be this fictional god.  The characters in the game (us Humans) would be like puppets.  

On my view however, the Universe is not analogous to a computer game.  Reality is an absolute, and everything is what it is and does what it does independent of any ruling consciousness.

I agree with your definition of nature; which is why I disagree with your application of supernatural. I have no problem viewing God as natural, since by definition his very existence would define him as natural. However, I think most people who prefer describing God as supernatural, aren't defining nature the way you are. Instead, they're cleaving the whole of reality/existence in two, that which is natural and that which is supernatural. So I think you're coming across contradictions because you mean different things by nature, and the definitions are incompatible.

As far as the video game analogy, what are your thoughts on the Simulation Theory? From what I understand, within such a view reality is still absolute it just so happens that reality is a simulation. The theory is born out of computer science, not theology.

[Objectivist]

No, I don't think that I am using any terms incorrectly. On my view when one talks of Nature one is speaking of existence, all of it, the sum total.  We call it nature when it is seen as a collection of entities acting and interacting with each other according to their natures or identities and according to the Law of Causality.  To speak of something outside of Nature would be to speak of an entity that is outside the concept entity, outside of the Law of identity and outside the Law of causality.  It is wracked with contradictions.  I think you're right to say that the supernatural is a synonym for the non-existent since to exist is to be something specific, to possess identity.  And yet "God" is supposed to transcend all that.  If a god existed "outside of Nature"  it would exist outside of existence and it would bo nothing.   

On your view, the world we live in is analogous to a video game.  I think this is a good analogy given what Christianity has to say about the Universe being a creation.  In a video game, the action is dictated by the programmer who creates the virtual world of the game and by the choices of the player, which in this case would be this fictional god.  The characters in the game (us Humans) would be like puppets.  

On my view however, the Universe is not analogous to a computer game.  Reality is an absolute, and everything is what it is and does what it does independent of any ruling consciousness.

Can't wait to see him back he cartoon universe theory of theism

Are you speaking about this?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Can't wait to see him back he cartoon universe theory of theism

Are you speaking about this?

Indeed 

[Objectivist]

No, I don't think that I am using any terms incorrectly. On my view when one talks of Nature one is speaking of existence, all of it, the sum total.  We call it nature when it is seen as a collection of entities acting and interacting with each other according to their natures or identities and according to the Law of Causality.  To speak of something outside of Nature would be to speak of an entity that is outside the concept entity, outside of the Law of identity and outside the Law of causality.  It is wracked with contradictions.  I think you're right to say that the supernatural is a synonym for the non-existent since to exist is to be something specific, to possess identity.  And yet "God" is supposed to transcend all that.  If a god existed "outside of Nature"  it would exist outside of existence and it would bo nothing.   

On your view, the world we live in is analogous to a video game.  I think this is a good analogy given what Christianity has to say about the Universe being a creation.  In a video game, the action is dictated by the programmer who creates the virtual world of the game and by the choices of the player, which in this case would be this fictional god.  The characters in the game (us Humans) would be like puppets.  

On my view however, the Universe is not analogous to a computer game.  Reality is an absolute, and everything is what it is and does what it does independent of any ruling consciousness.

I agree with your definition of nature; which is why I disagree with your application of supernatural. I have no problem viewing God as natural, since by definition his very existence would define him as natural. However, I think most people who prefer describing God as supernatural, aren't defining nature the way you are. Instead, they're cleaving the whole of reality/existence in two, that which is natural and that which is supernatural. So I think you're coming across contradictions because you mean different things by nature, and the definitions are incompatible.

As far as the video game analogy, what are your thoughts on the Simulation Theory? From what I understand, within such a view reality is still absolute it just so happens that reality is a simulation. The theory is born out of computer science, not theology.

I realize that many people do divide reality into two opposing realms.  I recognize this and I call them on this reverse package dealing.  There's no legitimate reason to divide a fundamental concept like existence the way they are doing.  I don't think "supernatural" is a legitimate concept to begin with.  It's actually an anti-concept.  I wonder what those people who divide reality into the natural and the supernatural use as their concept denoting the whole of existence.  Do they understand the purpose of definitions and that definitions, if they are to be true, must be objective?  Objectivism avoids such errors by having a sound theory of concepts, something most theists don't have access to.  They certainly won't find anything resembling a theory of concepts in ancient texts written by people who were ignorant of such things.  

I think those that promote the notion that we live in a simulation are guilty of the fallacy of the stolen concept.  Notice what those who promote this hypothesis are doing.  We are expected to know and accept that there is such a thing as computers, that computers can run simulations, that someone exists that could program such a simulation and that such simulated realities are absolute, but we aren't able to know whether the things we perceive are real.  They don't realize that all these higher-level concepts rest on much more fundamental concepts and ultimately axiomatic concepts that they are denying with their hypothesis. They don't understand this because they don't have a conceptual understanding of knowledge.

I tell you what, if everyone knew about and thoroughly understood stolen concepts, such notions as the simulation theory would be laughed off the stage.

---

Are you speaking about this?

Indeed 

You're right! The notion that we are living in a simulation is an updated and secularized replacement for the cartoon universe theory.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I think those that promote the notion that we live in a simulation are guilty of the fallacy of the stolen concept.  Notice what those who promote this hypothesis are doing.  We are expected to know and accept that there is such a thing as computers, that computers can run simulations, that someone exists that could program such a simulation and that such simulated realities are absolute, but we aren't able to know whether the things we perceive are real.  They don't realize that all these higher-level concepts rest on much more fundamental concepts and ultimately axiomatic concepts that they are denying with their hypothesis. They don't understand this because they don't have a conceptual understanding of knowledge.

I tell you what, if everyone knew about and thoroughly understood stolen concepts, such notions as the simulation theory would be laughed off the stage.

---

What is the fallacy of the stolen concept? From its name and your response to Sungula, it sounds as if you're saying its wrong because its recycling/stealing the concept of the cartoon universe.

From the way you write it sounds as if you're into philosophy. I understand that most of these terms go beyond what I'm familiar with in science and have a life of their own in philosophy. This is interesting because the Simulation Theory seems to be born out of philosophy. I first heard of it in a podcast with David Chalmers, and I think Nick Bostrom is also one of the leading proponents. My point is this: I agree that if the proponents of Simulation Theory are scientists and/or computer scientists, that they may not have a conceptual understanding of knowledge, etc., since they're typically not trained in philosophy. But since the people that seem to play around with the idea the most are philosophers, I would assume they more than anyone else would understand these terms and avoid these fallacies.

[Mister Agenda]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in...Background

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioris...imitations

Two misconceptions worth addressing. First, the approach taken by early behaviorists was aimed at improving testability. It isn't the case that they thought mental states, emotions, etc., didn't exist. Rather that they weren't testable and we should focus elsewhere. There's no mention in the links that a kicked dog whimpering was viewed as a reflex. But the behavior does sound very reflexive. Step on a nail and you not only withdraw your limb, you exclaim ouch or some expletives. Your consciousness seems to just sit back and watch it happen. Afterwards you realize what you said and apologize if the context demands it. The dog's reaction is bound to be very reflexive as well, the question you need to answer is whether or not it is accompanied by a conscious experience.

The second thing to clarify is that the cognitive revolution was not about establishing consciousness. You didn't necessarily claim that it did, but between what you wrote and what you cited it gave that impression. The focus of cognitive psychology was initially information processing, regardless of whether that processing occurs consciously or unconsciously (mostly unconscious). Your link primarily mentions Chomsky in the critique of behaviorism, but if you look at his early work, Chomsky was concerned with generative grammar and the rules your brain uses to produce language. You are not conscious of the processes that generate speech, you're only conscious of speaking.

I didn't realize that you needed to be walked through the entire history of thought on animal behavior. If I step on a nail, I feel pain. I don't have to contextualize it, it hurts. If you don't think a dog feels pain, I trust you don't own one.

On the cognitive revolution not being about establishing consciousness: correct, I did not claim that it did.

[The Grand Nudger]

Stolen concept is when some person argues against a proposition by reference to assertions which depend on that proposition being true. A self refuting idea.

The classic example is of a person rejecting the genetic validity of sense experience, while arguing from sense experience. Reduced to a form-

"I know that sense is false, because of these true sense experiences."

[Mister Agenda]

What is the fallacy of the stolen concept? From its name and your response to Sungula, it sounds as if you're saying its wrong because its recycling/stealing the concept of the cartoon universe.

Ayn Rand coined the term, I believe. It refers to using ideas in your argument that assume the validity of the idea to argue against the idea. Like as trying to use a logical argument to make a case that logic is not valid. I'm not sure the cartoon universe idea itself qualifies as a stolen concept in this case, who thought of something first is irrelevant.

Usually 'stolen concept fallacies' are better broken down into more recognized fallacies, such as special pleading; like the argument that everything requires a cause; but not God.

Edit: Ninja'd by Gae Bolga

[John 6IX Breezy]

I didn't realize that you needed to be walked through the entire history of thought on animal behavior. If I step on a nail, I feel pain. I don't have to contextualize it, it hurts. If you don't think a dog feels pain, I trust you don't own one.

If you step on a nail you may or may not feel it; that information doesn't always enter conscious awareness. We've all had situations where we find ourselves bleeding and have no idea where the scratch came from; soldiers in battle are more likely to have life-threatening injuries go unnoticed.

More importantly withdrawing your foot from injury is the very definition of a reflex. That information synapses at the spine and the reflex response is initiated before any information enters the brain.

I understand that owning a dog makes you see things differently. Admittedly the animals I own are not at the same level of expressiveness as dogs. Dogs and humans are both social animals, and social animals regulate each other's nervous systems. Their response to pain is essentially bred to make you feel something. That's fine if you feel something, I'm not telling you to remove the humanity out of the interaction. I'm just asking you to understand how it all works and not come to scientific conclusions based on your emotions.