Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Law Of Contradiction
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 16 of 177 (339206)
08-11-2006 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2006 11:54 AM


Re: Welcome to EvC
The mere fact that they spend inordinate amounts of time attempting to dissuade you in your faith coupled with the fact that many of them turn rabid against Christians speaks very loudly that there is still part of them that wants to believe, and in certain respects, do still believe.
I'm calling you on that. Substantiate your charge by providing links to several posts where atheists are "rabid against Christians". It is my impression that the atheists here are mainly defending evolution against the disinformation coming from the creationist camp. I see very little in the way of atheists attempting to persuade Christians to give up their religion, and none that I would characterize as "rabid".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2006 11:54 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2006 2:00 PM nwr has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 17 of 177 (339209)
08-11-2006 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2006 11:54 AM


Re: Welcome to EvC
To paraphrase:
The mere fact that [fundie Christians] spend inordinate amounts of time attempting to [per]suade you in [their] faith coupled with the fact that many of them turn rabid against [anything but fundie Christianity] speaks very loudly that there is still part of them that [that is terrfied that they are wrong], and in certain respects, [understand how absurd their ideas are].

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2006 11:54 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2006 2:04 PM subbie has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 177 (339217)
08-11-2006 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by PurpleYouko
08-11-2006 12:48 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
Any Scientist, atheist or theist, is well aware of the fact that science has absolutely nothing to say about God whatsoever.
I disagree fundamentally. If God exists then there could not be any physical law that did not derive from Him. If God is the platform from which all things emerge, then ALL that IS, is directly influenced by Him in some form or other.
Any attempt at disproving God on a base of logic via the "Law of Contradiction" is not really an attempt to disprove the existence of God but to disprove (or falsify) a specific, man made depiction of God and his attributes.
I could agree with that statement. But what purpose does that serve, particularly if there is no purpose to the universe anyway? That's counter-intuitive. That's like saying being ridiculous is being ridiculous. (I'm using the atheistic argument here to demonstrate that its core beliefs are at odds with one another philosophically)
For example the logical impossibility of any being, simultaineously having the attributes of Omniscience and Omnipotence.
There is no contradiction in this, only a lack of understanding it on the proponents part. That in no way negates one or the other.
This is not an attack on God at all. If you want to think of it as an attack at all then it is an attack on the arrogance of a mere human who presumes to be able to define God in his own percieved image.
There are people who arrogantly esteem God and there are people who arrogantly assume that they can live without Him. I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. But truth is truth whether we know what that truth is, otherwise truth and falsehood would be meaningless, ambiguous terms. That's the hard part. That was the profound question asked by Pontious Pilate: "What is truth?" Gathering that knowledge is the fun part and the hard part. But hey, its the journey not the destination, aye?
Please note that this is only your version of God. There are plenty of people who do not need to believe that the bible is inerrant in order to have a perfectly fullfilling relationship with God.
I'm aware that there are many versions of god, however, I was pointing out that we only seem to talk about one God here on EvC. Again, people don't attack strawmen, they attack things that threaten them. Draw your own conclusion.
The only reason we do is because we are defending ourselves against inflamatory remarks like this one. There I answered the unanswerable question.
Its only inflamatory to you if you believe in relative morals. If morals were really relative you would have no basis for calling my remarks inflamatory apart from your personal opinion. So, again, why spend so much time denying what you claim already doesn't exist? No one is forcing you to come onto EvC, so right there, we can draw a logical conclusion that the topic interests you. If so, why? And if not, then why are you here defending a position of nothingness in a purposeless universe? It makes no sense. Therefore, a tacit recognition that God exists remains in the atheist, but most especially, the staunch atheist.
Nobody accuses me of having no morals because I lack a belief in flying purple elephant.
If morals are relative then what difference does it make what somebody else thinks? If there was not a recognition of a set standard there would be nothing to argue about, much less, get angry over. Therefore, it points to a tacit recognition of God.
Nobody accuses scientists who don't believe in flying purple elephants, of being dishonest or falsifying evidence in an A-Flying-Purple-Elephant conspiracy.
What difference would it make in a purposeless existence what anyone thinks? It wouldn't. It would be as arbitrary as saying we all have blue blood until the blood runs out of our capillaries, veins, and arteries. If truth has no real moorings then we are adrift aimlessly. If morals are relative then we all have our own opinions, and no ones opinion would be any more or less valid than the next person. If you are angry that means somewhere along the line you are appealing to them to conform to the set standard of being compliant and courteous to your beliefs. But that would be an absolute phenomenon you are requesting us to conform to, in which case, that would dismantle your argument.
Nobody attempts to inject teachings about said Flying-Purple-Elephant into science classes under the thin disguise of ID.
What difference does it make? If truth is absolute then why not morals?
Nobody keeps rubbing my face in the fact that if I don't believe in their Flying-Purple-Elephant, that I am an evil sinner who is going to hell.
If you are evil then we all are evil. But if you aren't evil then what difference does it make what somebody thinks of you? If morals are relative then it doesn't matter.
Nobody comes around knocking on my door and preaching the virtues of belief in the Flying-Purple-Elephant, or thrusts pamphlets at me in public places.
If proponents of the FPE had some insight that you needed the FPE, then what would anger you about them warning you? If morals are absolute then there is nothing wrong about them doing that and there is nothing right about you being annoyed by it.
Only to the extent that they become annoyed at constantly having to defend themselves and science in general against "the great uninformed" who continuously barrage them with religious mumbo-jumbo.
Well, its not "wrong" of them. So, who cares?
Alright, if you can't tell, I'm showing how the atheistic mindframe when you break it down, argument by argument, makes no sense. If you don't believe in God I can't convince you to believe, I can only show you the water. If you are thirsty, you'll drink. If you're not, you won't. But wouldn't you say that its much more prudent to claim agnosticism over atheism? It seems so much more objective and realisitic because an atheist is purporting things that he cannot logically refute, whereas, the agnostic is simply claiming that they haven't sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion one way or another.
And that is the way I see it.
Divine and Constitutional Law respects that decision.
Also bear in mind that the actual Atheists here at EVC are in the minority. Most members are actually Christian, just not literalists.
That's news to me.

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-11-2006 12:48 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by robinrohan, posted 08-11-2006 2:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 27 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-11-2006 2:31 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 77 by nator, posted 08-11-2006 8:04 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 177 (339219)
08-11-2006 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by robinrohan
08-11-2006 12:56 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
I'm not sure. I wonder if we could take a poll. I'm curious.
Well, we could request one to ascertain the majority opinion. Anyone wanna give it a shot? If not, I'll do it. Just let me know so that we don't end up writing more threads than neccesary.

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by robinrohan, posted 08-11-2006 12:56 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by robinrohan, posted 08-11-2006 2:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 177 (339220)
08-11-2006 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by nwr
08-11-2006 1:20 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
I'm calling you on that. Substantiate your charge by providing links to several posts where atheists are "rabid against Christians". It is my impression that the atheists here are mainly defending evolution against the disinformation coming from the creationist camp. I see very little in the way of atheists attempting to persuade Christians to give up their religion, and none that I would characterize as "rabid".
I was speaking in generalities about many atheists. But if you must know, I've met quite alot of hostilities on EvC, just not nearly as much as my former forum. That's why I left and came here. EvC is much more cordial than some of the discourteous forums I've been on. What I'm not going to do is go back and find all of the times that someone was practically foaming at the mouth over my arguments.

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nwr, posted 08-11-2006 1:20 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 08-11-2006 2:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 08-11-2006 2:37 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 177 (339221)
08-11-2006 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2006 1:49 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
What difference would it make in a purposeless existence what anyone thinks? It wouldn't.
Well, you're right. In the long run--in an objective sense--it doesn't matter. In fact, nothing matters in that sense. However, we have our subjective purposes and interests, and so it matters to us in different ways, depending on the individual.
No one is forcing you to come onto EvC, so right there, we can draw a logical conclusion that the topic interests you. If so, why?
It interests me, for one, because I'm not certain.
Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2006 1:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 177 (339223)
08-11-2006 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2006 1:53 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
If not, I'll do it.
Go ahead. Sounds good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2006 1:53 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2006 2:05 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 177 (339224)
08-11-2006 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by subbie
08-11-2006 1:25 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
The mere fact that [fundie Christians] spend inordinate amounts of time attempting to [per]suade you in [their] faith coupled with the fact that many of them turn rabid against [anything but fundie Christianity] speaks very loudly that there is still part of them that [that is terrfied that they are wrong], and in certain respects, [understand how absurd their ideas are].
I assume you might be able to grasp the glaring contradiction. A Christian believes that your very life is on the line and speaks with you in hopes that you might recieve the doctrine of Truth. Its because he/she actually cares enough about you. Now, I will go so far to say that in doing this, and I'm not the exception, we can get carried away in argument and lose sight of that. But its very different for the atheist. The atheist is just here to be a polemicist, or as I said, there is some recognition of God at work, otherwise, why spend so much time talking about Deities you don't believe in? Provide me with another option if you don't believe me. Is there some introspection going on inside you wondering if my assessment is correct?

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by subbie, posted 08-11-2006 1:25 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by robinrohan, posted 08-11-2006 2:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 26 by Asgara, posted 08-11-2006 2:18 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 31 by subbie, posted 08-11-2006 2:39 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 177 (339225)
08-11-2006 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by robinrohan
08-11-2006 2:02 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
Go ahead. Sounds good.
Cool, I'll be back.

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by robinrohan, posted 08-11-2006 2:02 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 177 (339226)
08-11-2006 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2006 2:04 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
The atheist is just here to be a polemicist, or as I said, there is some recognition of God at work, otherwise, why spend so much time talking about Deities you don't believe in?
They might have practical reasons for wanting to get rid of religion. They might think it is dangerous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2006 2:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 26 of 177 (339234)
08-11-2006 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2006 2:04 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
It has been brought up that most here are defending their position on religion in public school science classes. That is the basis for the existence of the forum.
Provide me with another option if you don't believe me
I can't speak for others, but I don't think I need to believe in the characters in a book to do a literary critique. I do not need to believe Scarlett O'Hara actually existed to discuss the decisions she made in the book. I can understand that yes, Atlanta exists and yes Sherman marched through Georgia. Does that mean I believe that everything else in the book actually happened?
I have been in some pretty heated and fascinating debates on motivations and decisions made in a book of total fiction. It has nothing to do with belief in the characters or historicity of events.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2006 2:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 27 of 177 (339240)
08-11-2006 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2006 1:49 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
Any Scientist, atheist or theist, is well aware of the fact that science has absolutely nothing to say about God whatsoever.
I disagree fundamentally. If God exists then there could not be any physical law that did not derive from Him. If God is the platform from which all things emerge, then ALL that IS, is directly influenced by Him in some form or other.
SO are you saying that Science CAN prove or disprove the existence of God?
Go on then. Show us all where God has been detected and measured by science.
Alright, if you can't tell, I'm showing how the atheistic mindframe when you break it down, argument by argument, makes no sense.
I know what you are trying to do but the thing is that you are doing once again, the very thing that makes me and many other atheist get into this kind of discussion. You are trying to argue from an atheist mindset and getting it all wrong. Atheist arguments don't go anything like this. You are telling me how I think ,reason beleive but you seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding of it.
I think you are likely using a very narrow definition of the term Atheist but I'm not absolutely sure. You say...
because an atheist is purporting things that he cannot logically refute, whereas, the agnostic is simply claiming that they haven't sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion one way or another.
Actually I'm not quite sure what you are saying here but I think you are hinting that Atheists actively believe that God does not exist. If so then you are wrong. We don't all think that way. Atheists (by the definition of the word) simply lack an active belief in God. Disbelief is not necessary (although it is present in many). My Atheism is similar to Agnosticism except that I sway way over to the "God is not likelely to exist" camp in just the same way as I think it is highly unlikely that your Flying-Purple-Elephant exists. No positive evidence exists for either so I feel exactly the same about them both.
now as to your other points.
Any attempt at disproving God on a base of logic via the "Law of Contradiction" is not really an attempt to disprove the existence of God but to disprove (or falsify) a specific, man made depiction of God and his attributes.
I could agree with that statement. But what purpose does that serve, particularly if there is no purpose to the universe anyway? That's counter-intuitive. That's like saying being ridiculous is being ridiculous. (I'm using the atheistic argument here to demonstrate that its core beliefs are at odds with one another philosophically)
Your answer here isn't even self consistant. It looks like you just pulled a bunch of random words out of thin air and threw them together.
What the heck has purpose got to do with anything?
It's like I asked you how many eggs you have in your basket and you answered "Chicken". It's meaningless.
For example the logical impossibility of any being, simultaineously having the attributes of Omniscience and Omnipotence.
There is no contradiction in this, only a lack of understanding it on the proponents part. That in no way negates one or the other.
So what you are saying is that red could quite well actually be yellow. it just means that I don't understand color. very enlightening , I must say.
This issue is really at the core of the OP so let's look a bit closer to see if i understand the terms Omniscient and Omnipotent eh?
Omnipotent = The power to do absolutely anything. No limits can ever be imposed.
Omniscient = Unerring Knowledge of Everything, past, present and future. Cannot ever be wrong even in the tiniest way.
I contend that these two concepts cannot co-exist in any one being since he would know everything he is ever going to do and yet still have the power to not do it. Yet the act of not doing itwould mean he was wrong.
Either Omniscience negates ompipotence since it limits the omnipotent being's actions to only those that he knows he will do in advance OR Omnipotence nullifies any kind of foreknowledge.
I'm aware that there are many versions of god, however, I was pointing out that we only seem to talk about one God here on EvC.
No no no. We talk about loads of Gods here at EVC. That is half the problem. Everybody here is talking about a subtly different one. makes agreement kind of difficult.
Again, people don't attack strawmen, they attack things that threaten them. Draw your own conclusion.
Actually I attack anything I believe to be untrue and even many things that I believe are true. If the thing stands up to my attack then it is one step closer to acceptance. If it crumbles then it has been falsified. that is the way of science. I only feel threatened by ignorance since it seems to latch onto dangerous notions.
Its only inflamatory to you if you believe in relative morals. If morals were really relative you would have no basis for calling my remarks inflamatory apart from your personal opinion.
Not this again.
Morals come from upbringing, society and any number of other factors. Since no two people anywhere share absolutely identical morals, they must be subjective. If there is any such thing as an objective moral then nobody has ever seen it so it might as well not exist.
I call the remarks inflamatory because society recognises them as such. If i were to call you an ignorant butthole (not that I am doing so) you would feel insulted. So would everybody in our society. maybe in another society it might be a compliment.
If morals are relative then what difference does it make what somebody else thinks?
because it appears to be an insult and everyone (relatively speaking) gets upset or annoyed when they are insulted.
Ah crap! This is getting too long so it will have to do for now.
Edited by PurpleYouko, : Somehow i managed to transpose a chunk of text in the wrong place

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2006 1:49 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by robinrohan, posted 08-11-2006 2:37 PM PurpleYouko has replied
 Message 45 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2006 4:13 PM PurpleYouko has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 28 of 177 (339244)
08-11-2006 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2006 2:00 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
But if you must know, I've met quite alot of hostilities on EvC, just not nearly as much as my former forum.
My recollection is that those "hostilities" had to do with your dubious science arguments, not with your religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2006 2:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 177 (339245)
08-11-2006 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by PurpleYouko
08-11-2006 2:31 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
Omnipotent = The power to do absolutely anything. No limits can ever be imposed.
Except that which contradicts itself, like making round squares.
I contend that these two concepts cannot co-exist in any one being since he would know everything he is ever going to do and yet still have the power to not do it. Yet the act of not doing itwould mean he was wrong.
I don't get this. Just because he can do something doesn't mean he has to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-11-2006 2:31 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-11-2006 2:48 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2006 4:25 PM robinrohan has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 30 of 177 (339246)
08-11-2006 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2006 2:00 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
What I'm not going to do is go back and find all of the times that someone was practically foaming at the mouth over my arguments.
Uh-huh. You're convinced that people attack your arguments because they hate Christians?
Did you ever consider that it might simply be because you are ignorant and wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2006 2:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2006 4:30 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024