<p>
</p>
<p>ha i could tell you that based on my experience in this thread : D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand what this means. I do like taco bell a lot though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see–you are just asserting that there is no ‘transcendental plane’. This is a philosophical difference. I personally agree with this (I think). But this isn’t something very convincing to the Christian. He could say, ‘well, i think there is one’. Do you have anything that could persuade the christian?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think this even needs a response because it’s about the dumbest argument on here.</p>
<p>A response would be nice though…</p>
<p>Also, let’s bring out those lovely logical fallacies again:</p>
<p>Argument from outrage: argues against something without offering arguments besides saying that the thing would be unacceptible, or outrageous, or “wrong”, or “silly”, and so on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. Because he’s already been brainwashed by the churches that say God is the reason for everything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unicorns may exist as well. However, we haven’t discovered their cloaking device yet. </p>
<p>YERR HOW ABERT NOT</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. Thanks for picking up the slack on this thread silence!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, that is where you’re wrong, and your logic breaks down and doesn’t follow. How does “God is illogical” in any way follow from “the existence of god is something that science cannot answer”. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That seems perfectly fair to me. Exactly, it may be hard, but we have to remember that we’re dealing with human concepts here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You tell me, you’re the one who asserts that God exists.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I surely hope silence_kit isn’t as religiously devoted as you are, otherwise this thread will never die.</p>
<p>They don’t need a cloaking device; they are magical.</p>
<p>I think you knocked down a nice straw man there, though.</p>
<p>
I don’t know… If you mean the fallacy, appeal to the majority? Anyway, a thread on CC with anonymous people is not a credible source for anything, and I wasn’t asserting that we were right, only that you had the obligation to consult another source in this situation. I don’t even know what other thread you’re talking about, to be honest.</p>
<p>
…No… I’m saying that when a logical inconsistency is found, all anyone has to do is invent another axiom to explain it and the logical system becomes consistent again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
I was not talking about science and religion when I said that. I was talking about logical inconsistencies.</p>
<p>
I’m saying that no human is capable of holding a personal belief system that is logically consistent all the time. The rules of science require logical consistency, so even though I’m not logically consistent, if I prescribe to science, I’m prescribing to a logical reality. Mainstream religious texts, specifically the Christian bible, are NOT logically consistent by their literal interpretation. Unless there is an annotated Christian bible out there that has considered and explained every contradiction, which is to admit that there ARE contradictions, and unless someone has prescribed wholly to that interpretation of the Christian bible, their personal belief system is illogical.</p>
<p>
There is a dichotomy because science rejects the stories of the Christian bible. Genesis alone would be enough to create a dichotomy. To accept the first story in the Christian bible would mean rejecting one of the basic assumptions of science (that you so kindly linked me): “reality is objective and consistent.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a cute answer, but the correct answer is ‘no, because my differences with him boil down to a difference in opinion. i have no reason for asserting that there is no transcendental. it is something i assume.’ i’m sorry, but you do NOT have enlightened beliefs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>the author isn’t being very clear in the quoted text. either you are misunderstanding him, or he isn’t making his point clear in that snippet of text. he is either doing one of two things:</p>
<p>1) he has a logical system that consists of
i) things fall up
ii) things in real life fall down
iii) (added) things on sunday fall up
notice: adding axiom iii) doesn’t remove any consistencies. i) still obviously contradicts ii). actually, adding axiom iii) doesn’t add any content at all! maybe the author didn’t mean this.</p>
<p>2) well, maybe he is just disturbed that people reason about things outside of reality. this is stupid—mathematicians do it all of the time! maybe he meant this system:
i) things fall up
ii) on sunday, things fall up</p>
<p>here there’s no contradiction. again, adding ii) adds no content. This snippet of text is kind of silly.</p>
<p>the only maybe disturbing thing about the quote is that he is setting up a system of reasoning that obviously contradicts something he just observed. But you don’t have to do that to be Christian.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>not all christians literally interpret the bible. catholics don’t. non-fundamentalist protestants don’t. this is a non-issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Catholics and non-fundamentalist protestants don’t literally believe the story of creation. the catholic church has made official statements saying that they support evolution.</p>
<p>I suppose instead of only adding more axioms, you would need to modify current ones as well.
<p>I think you took the “really” wrong, because he made no distinction about reality.</p>
<p>
Lol. It becomes an issue when you are trying to claim they might possibly have a logically consistent system of beliefs, unique to them, contained only in their memory, based off an illogical system in the first place.</p>
<p>
Uh… Okay? I don’t understand where you’re going with this… There are numerous unscientific happenings in the Christian bible (virgin birth, water to wine, global flood, etc). Believing in a religious text alone is a violation of the scientific method. Honestly, when religions start rejecting their own stories in light of accepted scientific theories, it becomes less of a religion. Christians who support the theory of evolution AND admit that there was a historical Jesus, but he did not perform miracles like the Christian bible illustrates? But they believe in the Christian god and afterlife… At what point can you no longer consider them Christian?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry, what is the point you are making behind all of this rhetorical jargon? It’s almost as if you are spewing out garbage and expecting everyone to think you sound smart and agree with you.</p>
<p>gotakun, i’m not ignoring your posts—i’m just a little busy right now and will have to put off responding to your last post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What exactly are you confused about? I’ve explained this idea to two posters now in this thread and posted a link with a paragraph explaining my ideology. You ignored me when I tried to explain my stance and then called me stupid. What point are you getting hung up on?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re going to have to explain it again, because all I hear is “I’m going to talk out of my ass because I don’t have a good argument”. </p>
<p>But hey, what do you come to college confidential for a good intellectual discussion?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think we’re done here. I asked you at what point precisely you were getting hung up on, and you ignored me. There isn’t any point in talking with you when you aren’t even trying to understand what I’m saying. Have a nice day.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Almost like there isn’t any point in trying to disprove religion because it’s like swiping at air.</p>
<p>I don’t even feel like commenting on this thread anymore because it has turned from “Does God exist?” to arguments over silly semantics and superficial/ contrived constructions ---- listen language was to help us communicate over reality — simple reality ---- the natural world doesn’t exist so we can fight over endless iterations of langauge and what is “logical” and so forth.</p>
<p>Believing in God is not “illogical.” That is because only certain specific arguments are illogical (debatably), and “God” is not an argument; it is an entity, whether he is fictional or not.</p>
<p>This might scare some of you — but objective “logic” does not exist — it is only a word in our language to juxtapose a reasoning opposite of something highly emotional.</p>
<p>Your belief that something is logical - however well-argued it might seem to you — is akin to picking your favorite flavor of ice cream as “best.” Some people like chocolate and some people like vanilla; neither is “correct” or “incorrect.” Saying something is illogical is akin to saying something is wrong ---- okay, you disagree but you didn’t give any reasoning why.</p>
<p>Also, I don’t believe in an Almighty God but I also hardly believe in an Almighty Science. Yes, physical laws govern our entire universe but you have to be pretty naive and inexperienced to think that the physical sciences we teach at universities are anywhere near describing our universe as it truly is or have solved even 5% of the great mysteries of our world/ our universe.</p>
<p>Science is empirically based, but our empirical instruments and models are simply not that grand right now. Hell, look at any of the social sciences ----- the complexities of human interaction (look at dating) embarass any laboratory settings or ridiculous experiments from clueless old men that try to replicate these scenarios. Simplicity and the necessity to eliminate confounding variables (aka do very basic experiments) has really tied our hands right now. The other sciences have discovered a ton, but trust me, the amount we don’t know is much vaster than what we do know.</p>
<p>Science, in essence, is recongizing patterns. That’s it. It’s finding patterns, seeing patterns, maybe ever where there aren’t any, and then telling others what the patterns were.</p>
<p>Our great science is —just— —patterns—. So get off the high horse of “science.”</p>
<p>Hell, hasn’t anyone heard of “t” tests and ANOVAS and what-not to discover differences between conditions or populations? The great (and arbitrary) 0.05 mark to deterimine if something is significant or not? It makes sense but if you think about it, it doesn’t really prove anything.</p>
<p>Yes, if everytime you rub your head, you are dealt a royal flush — the sheer probability may suggest that somehow, in some way, the two are connected. Yet there is ALWAYS the astronomical (relatively) chances that is was all dumb chance. That’s science for you anyway.</p>
<p>Thank you peter…you are rehearsing some of the stuff I’ve been trying to say here-</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is what I mean when I say “people logic”. Logic this way isn’t reasoned because it doesn’t happen every single time. You go to the grocery store because you are hungry (a reason), but it isn’t a true reason because you won’t go there every single time you are hungry. It’s only in retrospect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you. I wish you said that in the free will thread.</p>
<p>However I may have to disagree with this- </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Believing in God is akin to seeing a ball rolling down the street and assuming your mother did it with nothing empirical to suggest that she did.</p>
<p>gotakun–i’m still putting a response to your last chunk of text on hold–in one of the things you brought up something I didn’t think about (the divinity of Christ–durr i should have had that in mind . . .). i’ll want to put some time into that response. what i’ll probably do in that post is move goalposts and revise my claims. they won’t be too different though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is an important difference! You were claiming like this ailment (logical inconsistency) was something you can repair, but really, the only remedy is to throw one premise away. You have to force the other to eat his words.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>maybe it is lame to continue to pick on what the author wrote, but if he isn’t including ‘things in real life fall down’ into his system, then </p>
<p>1) there never existed a contradiction in his system
2) he isn’t introducing new ideas by including the second premise–it is just a special case of the first one</p>
<p>i thought he was trying to make a point about how you can use logical reasoning to arrive at answers that contradict what you can observe. But this statement is either:</p>
<p>1) patently obvious–if you don’t include ‘things observed’ in your system, then of course you can arrive at results that contradict things observed.
2) wrong–you can’t amend contradictions by adding more assumptions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But many Christians do not use ‘the literal interpretation of the bible’ as their logical system. catholics & non-fundamentalist protestants don’t. </p>
<p>Even sects that say that they literally interpret the bible really don’t–usually those sects believe in redemption by faith alone, but there is an entire book in the bible whose thesis is to contradict that. In any event, I’m not talking (and never was talking) about these guys.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>my mistake.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is important to agree on what logical means when you are arguing about whether religion is logical or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure exactly what you are saying, but I think that I disagree. Within a set of assumptions, you can start saying whether things are correct or incorrect and even give reasons for saying that!</p>