Illogical things can be real, like God, I have an idea

[LostLocke]

When I say "the computer is illogical", I meant it cannot be easily explained and may not be thought to be possible in the middle ages.

That's true, but, if you traveled back in time with a computer, it would be on you to prove that it does exist and work as you describe, not on them to disprove it doesn't.

[bennyboy]

lolwut?

/thread

[Tripwire]

Yep... It is true: illogical things exist... like your post!

---

lolwut?

/thread

---

Uhhhhh... what?

---

[x2theone2x]

I personally do agree with this individual, even if the original post is quite lackluster. I'll give another example though: Most animals cannot distinguish themselves (or the reflection) while facing (anatomical view) towards a mirror, humans can, but imagine if there is something else in the universe like this mirror that humans cannot rationalize.

[houseofcantor]

What happens when you put more hammers in the "dumb as a bag of hammers" bag?

[Ryantology]

I personally do agree with this individual, even if the original post is quite lackluster. I'll give another example though: Most animals cannot distinguish themselves (or the reflection) while facing (anatomical view) towards a mirror, humans can, but imagine if there is something else in the universe like this mirror that humans cannot rationalize.

There are things like that, but given enough time, we figure them out.

Something not being impossible is the worst conceivable argument for it being real.

[bennyboy]

There are things like that, but given enough time, we figure them out.

If we figure them out, then we are NOT limited by our nature from comprehending them. The question is whether there is anything that is necessarily incomprehensible due to some limitation in the human condition.

Can a worm comprehend Mozart? No. Can a monkey comprehend math? No. Given any animal, it's easy to see that there are things that species will never comprehend. For it to be different for humans, we would have to be a truly perfect species, without natural limitations. Believing this to be the case surely must be irrational anthropocentrism. How would the worm even KNOW that it is missing out on Mozart? How would a person even KNOW that he is missing out on ____________?

Something not being impossible is the worst conceivable argument for it being real.

Not when infinite things are not impossible, and even one of them can satisfy the OP argument. Arguing that one SPECIFIC thing is not impossible, so is likely real, is terrible. Arguing that SOMETHING that we cannot conceive, ever, is real, is perfectly reasonable, since it doesn't require imagining people to be infallible gods.

[c172]

Is Orlox a breakfast porridge or something you use to cleain your drain?

[Ryantology]

If we figure them out, then we are NOT limited by our nature from comprehending them. The question is whether there is anything that is necessarily incomprehensible due to some limitation in the human condition.

How would you even make that determination? If something is that far beyond us, then I am only more prone to mistrust those who claim to make special exceptions whenever they suit him.

If God behaves in ways we don't comprehend and his motives can't be known, then those who claim to comprehend him and know his motives are liars.

Can a worm comprehend Mozart? No. Can a monkey comprehend math? No. Given any animal, it's easy to see that there are things that species will never comprehend. For it to be different for humans, we would have to be a truly perfect species, without natural limitations. Believing this to be the case surely must be irrational anthropocentrism. How would the worm even KNOW that it is missing out on Mozart? How would a person even KNOW that he is missing out on ____________?

Could any of these creatures eventually evolve to the point where they could comprehend these things? Do we even have the knowledge to suggest that they don't comprehend them in their own ways? Do we have the conceit to suggest that there is a correct way to comprehend them?

Not when infinite things are not impossible, and even one of them can satisfy the OP argument. Arguing that one SPECIFIC thing is not impossible, so is likely real, is terrible. Arguing that SOMETHING that we cannot conceive, ever, is real, is perfectly reasonable, since it doesn't require imagining people to be infallible gods.

Suggesting that something is beyond our comprehension doesn't by itself indicate that there is actually something there we aren't comprehending.

[bennyboy]

How would you even make that determination? If something is that far beyond us, then I am only more prone to mistrust those who claim to make special exceptions whenever they suit him.

We wouldn't, and couldn't, make that determination. That's the point.

If God behaves in ways we don't comprehend and his motives can't be known, then those who claim to comprehend him and know his motives are liars.

I think it's much more likely that people lie desperately to themselves than craftily lie to others. But frankly, I wasn't talking about God in that last post.

Could any of these creatures eventually evolve to the point where they could comprehend these things? Do we even have the knowledge to suggest that they don't comprehend them in their own ways? Do we have the conceit to suggest that there is a correct way to comprehend them?

They cannot comprehend the musical language of Mozart, while they might make their own wormy sense of the vibrations. The point is that the human experience, the elation etc. that music can bring, is inaccesible to worms. And since we are less complex in relation to the universe than the worm is in relation to us, I have to assume there are MANY relationships which are similarly inaccessible to us.

As for evolution: if a worm evolved so far as to be able to appreciate Mozart in the way that we do, it would no longer be a worm. Could humanity, by some billions-years-long chaing of events, become godlike? Maybe, but that's blind speculation.

Suggesting that something is beyond our comprehension doesn't by itself indicate that there is actually something there we aren't comprehending.

It's easy to prove there are things we can't comprehend. Pick up an advanced theoretical physics book. 95% of us have no chance to understand it due to pure IQ deficiency. Now, take the top 1% of physicists, and ask-- is it conceivable that another person could be born so much cleverer than them that they wouldn't even be able to understand what he said? I think the answer to that, based on pure statistics, is yes, it is possible.

And this is just among humans, right here, right now.