[DolliMoans]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

Why? I can easily imagine a reality of a god existing in a wordless void. That, in fact, was the reality before Genesis 1:1.

It's the sheer Godness of the pre-Genesis epoch I am imagining now. How amazing it could have been, to exist in absolute theostasis? Our Lord is so perfect, He knew the splendorous pressure of us living in Him would be too much to handle, and so He created a tangible universe for us, His children, to live and worship Him, so that He would live in each of us instead (1 Corinthians 3:16). Isn't our God amazing?

[Basilissa]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

Yes and no.

Your Logic, supposedly based on mine:
Premise 1: If God exists, his creation (the world) exists
Premise 2: The world exists, because we can measure it
Conclusion: God exists

The Argument is flawed because it commits the Post hoc fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc). Basically, Premise 2 has other potential explanations.

Brother Gonz has addressed that perfectly:

I love how you point towards Premise 2 being the flawed one in Sister Bas' post. So premise one {Premise 1: If God exists, his creation (the world) exists} is true.

Psychologist would say that was your subconcious. We know otherwise: is the way the Holy Ghost is leading you to be a True Christian. Embrace it, don't be a fool. You could end up in Heaven with all of us!

Amen, Brother!

Neither of the premises are false. It would be madness to state otherwise. IF God exists, the world would exist, obviously.

Why? I can easily imagine a reality of a god existing in a wordless void. That, in fact, was the reality before Genesis 1:1.

[Brother Gonzalez]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

No, no, no, you've got it wrong.


The problem with the argument is the logic behind it - it is fallacious. Neither of the premises are false. It would be madness to state otherwise. IF God exists, the world would exist, obviously. But it's an IF. The world could exist without God, or, if it couldn't, this argument in no way supports that.

Premise 2 is ok then. The world exists, we can measure it, it exists. There is no need for cause here.
Premise 1 is If God's creation exists, then God exists.
So the conclusion is obviously true.


There is no flawed logic there. Unless, of course, you can prove the world was not created by God. Or that the world does not exist.


Please go ahead and prove it, without any doubt.


I am grabbing popcorn.

[The_Power_of_Logic]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

I love how you point towards Premise 2 being the flawed one in Sister Bas' post. So premise one {Premise 1: If God exists, his creation (the world) exists} is true.


Psychologist would say that was your subconcious. We know otherwise: is the way the Holy Ghost is leading you to be a True Christian. Embrace it, don't be a fool. You could end up in Heaven with all of us!

No, no, no, you've got it wrong.


The problem with the argument is the logic behind it - it is fallacious. Neither of the premises are false. It would be madness to state otherwise. IF God exists, the world would exist, obviously. But it's an IF. The world could exist without God, or, if it couldn't, this argument in no way supports that.

[Brother Gonzalez]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

Yes and no.


Your Logic, supposedly based on mine:
Premise 1: If God exists, his creation (the world) exists
Premise 2: The world exists, because we can measure it
Conclusion: God exists


The Argument is flawed because it commits the Post hoc fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc). Basically, Premise 2 has other potential explanations.


Measuring the world to prove God may be based on the following syllogism:
Premise 1: x thing has been measured
Premise 2: The only explanation, or by far the most likely explanation for x thing being measured in this way is God
Conclusion: God exists


Hope this helps

I love how you point towards Premise 2 being the flawed one in Sister Bas' post. So premise one {Premise 1: If God exists, his creation (the world) exists} is true.


Psychologist would say that was your subconcious. We know otherwise: is the way the Holy Ghost is leading you to be a True Christian. Embrace it, don't be a fool. You could end up in Heaven with all of us!

[Isabella White]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

Yes and no.

Your Logic, supposedly based on mine:
Premise 1: If God exists, his creation (the world) exists
Premise 2: The world exists, because we can measure it
Conclusion: God exists

The Argument is flawed because it commits the Post hoc fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc). Basically, Premise 2 has other potential explanations.

Measuring the world to prove God may be based on the following syllogism:
Premise 1: x thing has been measured
Premise 2: The only explanation, or by far the most likely explanation for x thing being measured in this way is God
Conclusion: God exists

Hope this helps

My goodness, isn't that impressive, Miss Logic? I do so hope that you will be able to impress Almighty with it when you stand before him on Judgment Day.

Hebrews 9:27 "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment".

Matthew 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
And, instead of wasting your time over on Wikipedia, might I suggest this instead:

Sincerely, Isabella W.

[The_Power_of_Logic]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

By the same logic, we cannot measure God but we can measure His creation. So following your logic, you have just proven that God exists, because His creation (everything we see) exists. Good job!

Yes and no.


Your Logic, supposedly based on mine:
Premise 1: If God exists, his creation (the world) exists
Premise 2: The world exists, because we can measure it
Conclusion: God exists


The Argument is flawed because it commits the Post hoc fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc). Basically, Premise 2 has other potential explanations.


Measuring the world to prove God may be based on the following syllogism:
Premise 1: x thing has been measured
Premise 2: The only explanation, or by far the most likely explanation for x thing being measured in this way is God
Conclusion: God exists


Hope this helps

[James Hutchins]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

Are we looking to the other side to the fact that God defies logic all the time?For example:
For flooding the world, you need more water than the existing water in the world
Nevertheless, He can flood the entire world. And make the water disappear afterwards. There is no logic nor science to explain this.
God and His actions are not bound by any law.

Right you are, Brother Gonzales!


Everyone knows at one time, the Grand Canyon was filled with water. As were the badlands of Washington and Oregon. The deserts of the Middle East. These waters did not simply flow into the oceans. God removed them after the 40 days and nights of rain. Sponges can only hold so much water (those that have had a flooded basement can testify ro this!)
Praise His Glory!

[Brother Gonzalez]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

Are we looking to the other side to the fact that God defies logic all the time?For example:
For flooding the world, you need more water than the existing water in the world
Nevertheless, He can flood the entire world. And make the water disappear afterwards. There is no logic nor science to explain this.
God and His actions are not bound by any law.

[Basilissa]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

My What is Psychology if not the study of thoughts and feelings?

Did you just seriously call psychology, a science?

At the moment we can explain the causes of most feelings (e.g. Fear is a response to a perceived threat, anger a response to perceived injustice, etc.),

I gather you don't know much about love, or any "gut feelings" which make us like o dislike a person before the first interaction.

but our knowledge of neuroscience is not yet sufficient to measure feelings on a scale of one to ten. Quite likely, one day it will be.

I admire your positivism, but I do not share it.

Nevertheless, Premise 2 relies more on the things' impact. Even if we can't measure feelings, we can definitely measure their impact on the world, potentially down to the atom (potentially). To put it bluntly, we may not be able to directly measure your pain, but we could measure the volume in decibels of the sound you emit when you feel it. Of course, this varies from person to person, but these variations can be taken into account.


In this way, even if we cannot measure something directly, we can measure and explore it through the impact it has on the things we can measure.

By the same logic, we cannot measure God but we can measure His creation. So following your logic, you have just proven that God exists, because His creation (everything we see) exists. Good job!

[The_Power_of_Logic]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

1. If you have evidence to back your opinions, don't call them beliefs. Beliefs are for things you can't prove. Opinions which can be proven are hypotheses, theories, laws.

My apologies. I shall use the appropriate language henceforth.

Would you be inclined to agree that human emotions have an impact on the material world? Feelings such as love, hate, empathy, jealousy, you name it? I hope you do (if you don't, I will be more than happy to expand on this issue).


Now - how an you measure feelings scientifically? Sure, you can measure brain activity, but can you put a number on it? I'm always amazed by the subjectivity of people's answers when a nurse asks, "on a scale 0 to 10, how much pain do you feel?" Whatever answer given, is subjective. One person's threshold of what is slight and what is severe pain is different. Some people feel pain when they just see a needle, without being poked. Some people poke themselves with needles every day and don't consider that as pain.

I agree that we do not, at the moment, have objective scales for feelings. But science can and does explore even these areas; What is Psychology if not the study of thoughts and feelings? At the moment we can explain the causes of most feelings (e.g. Fear is a response to a perceived threat, anger a response to perceived injustice, etc.), but our knowledge of neuroscience is not yet sufficient to measure feelings on a scale of one to ten. Quite likely, one day it will be.


Nevertheless, Premise 2 relies more on the things' impact. Even if we can't measure feelings, we can definitely measure their impact on the world, potentially down to the atom (potentially). To put it bluntly, we may not be able to directly measure your pain, but we could measure the volume in decibels of the sound you emit when you feel it. Of course, this varies from person to person, but these variations can be taken into account.


In this way, even if we cannot measure something directly, we can measure and explore it through the impact it has on the things we can measure.

[Basilissa]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

Sure.

In essence:

Premise 1: Everything that "matters" in any way has an effect on the material world.
Premise 2: Science is a method by which one can measure things that have an effect on the material world.
Conclusion: Everything that "matters" can be measured by science.

I await your response, though I won't be able to reply for a couple of hours.

So, I'm on my phone and can't be too verbose, but:

1. If you have evidence to back your opinions, don't call them beliefs. Beliefs are for things you can't prove. Opinions which can be proven are hypotheses, theories, laws.


2. While I'm inclined to agree (based on my subjective experience of life) with Premise#1, I don't agree with Premise#2. Hear me out.


Would you be inclined to agree that human emotions have an impact on the material world? Feelings such as love, hate, empathy, jealousy, you name it? I hope you do (if you don't, I will be more than happy to expand on this issue).


Now - how an you measure feelings scientifically? Sure, you can measure brain activity, but can you put a number on it? I'm always amazed by the subjectivity of people's answers when a nurse asks, "on a scale 0 to 10, how much pain do you feel?" Whatever answer given, is subjective. One person's threshold of what is slight and what is severe pain is different. Some people feel pain when they just see a needle, without being poked. Some people poke themselves with needles every day and don't consider that as pain.


So what I'm trying to get at is, that not everything that has impact on material world is objectively measurable. That disproves your second premise, thus making your conclusion invalid.

[James Hutchins]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

Your science is 200+ years out of date. The clockwork universe died with Newton.


Your theology is ridiculous, as well. If God created this universe (like the Bible claims He did), then He is not of this universe, and the laws here do not apply to Him. The laws that do apply to Him we have no way of knowing, because we are restricted to this universe.

As much of an idiot you are, you do understand the reality of the it all except your blind eyed denial of the obvious.

[Didymus Much]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

...Conclusion: Everything that "matters" can be measured by science...

Your science is 200+ years out of date. The clockwork universe died with Newton.


Your theology is ridiculous, as well. If God created this universe (like the Bible claims He did), then He is not of this universe, and the laws here do not apply to Him. The laws that do apply to Him we have no way of knowing, because we are restricted to this universe.

[James Hutchins]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

In essence:

Premise 1: Everything that "matters" in any way has an effect on the material world.
Premise 2: Science is a method by which one can measure things that have an effect on the material world.
Conclusion: Everything that "matters" can be measured by science.

A lot of assumptons. Kind of stupid to make them when catagorical proofs have already been created.

Premise 1: Who determines 'what matters'? You are creating an opinion.
Premise 2: Science is a method that attempts to verify your opinion.
Conclusion: Everything you care about (your opinions) you can verify by science.


All fine and dandy but it ignores the big questions. Where did everything come from? How did man come to exist (please, lets not use the old 1 in a trillion luck' bit. Anyone with a smidgen of of advanced calculus and probability knows that chance is always a 1:1 relationship) How come God and His Holy Book already has the answers to everything, even the questions not yet asked?


See friend, as a True Christian, I have no need for wild opinions. I have no uninformed doubts. I make no absurd assumptions. I have faith in Jesus Christ and I am secure in the knowledge that since time began, God has had His Finger on us.