Theists and Atheists help me with logic about God!

[nooby]

Theist a person that believe that there exist a supernatural god.

sure there are few exceptions but most religions have that view.

Atheist a person that lack belief that there exist a supernatural god.

some add in any kind of gods.
Others add that atheists believe there exists faith in made up gods
but does not support such faith so lack belief in those too.
Atheists see made up gods as irrelevant Theists see them as false gods.

Now what I need your kind help with is the logic of God like this.

By definition God has to exist and to be supernatural.

or else it is a false god a kind of idol or image that maybe point to
a real god but still is a false god that the believer mistake to be
the real god.

I could be wrong there not sure I am bad at logic that is why I ask.

1. logically if God is supernatural then by definition
there is no way to find out if such a god really exist.
Being supernatural that god is beyond our reach.

2. so logically to me there is something odd about the whole set up.
By asking a believer if they believe in God one ask them
about something that they have no way to relate to or know about
God is by definition beyond human comprehension so what is going on? .

Sure they can answer that they believe in the God of the Bible
or the God of that particular religious tradition they belong to
or some theology they come with on their own

but logically one ask about something that is beyond human knowledge.

Is that not very odd why would one ask them
about logically impossible things that they can have no idea about?
The believer have no way to know such things so why ask them?

Or I am so lousy at logic that I have messed up everything and
you can sort it out in easy to grasp 1. 2. 3 there you have it explanation.

That is what I hope I know we have both believers and non-believers
so would appreciate that you shared your take on the logic of God.

I would prefer we have no debate I am only interested in the logic
and where I go wrong or if I am right about the logic what does that mean.

I can not forbid debate but we are in a tech forum and need to be friends
so hope it is okay that I ask for your help with this logic that puzzles me.

I am totally lost so need your kind help.

(If anybody wonder I am both religious and non-religious.
Intellectually I see no evidence for a god but my body
want to believe in a realistic possible God so I want to make one

[Flash]

What do you call someone who still believes there's a Santa?

[nooby]

What do you call someone who still believes there's a Santa?

You are teasing me are you not?

My question is not on that level is it?

but maybe the same logic would apply to such believe too.
suppose that person really claim that Santa is supernatural
and that Santa does exist then the same logic would apply?

So I guess me too stupid to get what you try to say.
I am not asking for a label I am asking about the logic of God.

Is there not something odd going on that is my question.
Not much odd about Santa is there. Parents use it to amuse
their kids because that is how one act in a culture with Santa?

Where I live we have another name for Santa. "Jultomten"

Not same guy AFAIK and other countries had St: Nicholas or some
similar name. is that same as Santa? I think your Santa is derailing us
unless you can explain how it relates.

[Karl Godt]

Hey Nooby :

You are asking too much !

K- AARON -RL tells you :

[ Btw I have read that Arizona is a fine place with less clouds to watch nigh sky ]

[rokytnji]

I find that people closer to death (like my late father) ponder these kind of things more so
as mortality nears it's end.

Logic says, insanity is practicing the same action over and over again and expecting a
different result.

Religion is good therapy for some. It

has some thing in common with your penis.
It is nice to have around, but is not good when you try and force it onto some one else.

I have nothing against God. It is his Fan Club that I can't stand.

I also believe God was a ancient astronaut and anyone who does not, deserves death and destruction according to the writings of the Church of The Four Stroke Gospel.

Are you pondering your mortality nooby? I guess you will find out like every body else does. The hard way.

[Ibidem]

Now what I need your kind help with is the logic of God like this.

By definition God has to exist and to be supernatural.

or else it is a false god a kind of idol or image that maybe point to
a real god but still is a false god that the believer mistake to be
the real god.

I could be wrong there not sure I am bad at logic that is why I ask.

1. logically if God is supernatural then by definition
there is no way to find out if such a god really exist.
Being supernatural that god is beyond our reach.

2. so logically to me there is something odd about the whole set up.
By asking a believer if they believe in God one ask them
about something that they have no way to relate to or know about
God is by definition beyond human comprehension so what is going on? .

Sure they can answer that they believe in the God of the Bible
or the God of that particular religious tradition they belong to
or some theology they come with on their own

but logically one ask about something that is beyond human knowledge.

Is that not very odd why would one ask them
about logically impossible things that they can have no idea about?
The believer have no way to know such things so why ask them?

Or I am so lousy at logic that I have messed up everything and
you can sort it out in easy to grasp 1. 2. 3 there you have it explanation.

1. Either there is a deity such as is described, or it is a false god.

2. The nature of "the supernatural" is such that it cannot be observed by the natural without a supernatural act rendering it tangible to the natural.
The questions here are (a) is man natural? and (b) can, or did, such an act occur?
Most major religions are premised on some variant of the "bipartite nature of man": the teaching that man has both a natural component and a-usually less aware-supernatural component.
(Some Pentecostals teach the "tripartite nature of man": a man consists of spirit-supernatural, soul-between natural and supernatural, and body-purely natural; other Christians think of the spirit and soul as one and the same. Christianity holds that the spirit is dead without Christ.)

The Abrahamic religions hold that their origin lay in divine revelation-God acted so as to reveal Himself to a few, mostly those referred to as "prophets" (people who had communication with God and relayed His messages to men).

Christianity additionally is based upon the "Incarnation": the God who created all things became man, was born of a virgin, and lived as the man Jesus (referred to as Messiah or Christ by virtue of his nature and his role).
The Incarnation is held to be proved by (1) the virgin birth, (2) numerous miracles and fulfillment of prophecy, including the "Resurrection", and (3) the "Ascension": Forty days after rising from the dead, Jesus was bodily transferred from earth in the sight of his disciples.

3. Comprehension is not the same as observing, experiencing, or knowing about. There are few who comprehend how a cell phone, a jet plane, and a fridge all work, but practically all of us have seen them and know a little about.

[Bruce B]

[ Btw I have read that Arizona is a fine place with less clouds to watch nigh sky ]

Arizona is famous for its spectacular sunsets complete with clouds.

Google 'arizona sunsets'

Visit this site:

http://phoenix.about.com/od/arizonapict ... ig/Sunset/

When you marvel at those sunsets, remember California is the state providing them for Arizona.

[jpeps]

3. Comprehension is not the same as observing, experiencing, or knowing about. There are few who comprehend how a cell phone, a jet plane, and a fridge all work, but practically all of us have seen them and know a little about.

Every tradition comes with its own set of practices. Believing or not believing without experience is two sides of the same coin.

[nooby]

Ro! you are right on the money indeed.
Could be very true my body knows it is near the end.

the pessimistic side of me say 5 years statistics say 10 years
and people around me who are way too optimistic say 15 years.

Okay I rather take 15 than 5 but it sure is near the end though.

I agree about the Fan club of God can be rather annoying
having all the answers. "We have the Truth!" kind if view
but I am sick and tired with how some atheists are extremely logical
They believe in logic as the infallible god to them.

"Are you pondering your mortality nooby? I guess you will find out like every body else does. The hard way."

[nooby]

Ibidem thanks for such a detailed answer where you explain
how it is seen from these points of view.

Yes that could explain why believers trust in such personal experiences
or trust that the text in the Bible do tell reliable retelling of such experiences
and therefor can be taken on faith?

Yes we have these variations in Sweden too.
Pentecostal seeing us as Spirit/soul and physical body
that can know God through the Spirit but also healed to the body
if God so decide.

Our versions the Kenneth Hagen theology from Tulsa locally do
name themselves Words of Life but AKA Words of Faith Ministries.
They have three such and the Pentecostals reacted strongly against it
when they heard about it around 1980 to 1984? Not sure when it got known
locally here. Some Pastor went to Tulsa to learn and came back having
a new theology with them.

Ibidem maybe I misunderstand you when you write this
"1. Either there is a deity such as is described, or it is a false god. "

Then you do not refer to my text what you refer to is what the Bible
say about God? The words "a deity such as is described" refers to
either my text or the official interpretation in each religious tradition???

I tried to combine the official view that some religious do have
with the logic of what the word supernatural most likely refers to.

That God has to be beyond science to measure seems to be agreed upon
by most religions? A measurable God would be too "small"

On the other hand if the Real existing God are so remote
that there is nothing you can say about God without making up
wild guesses then how reliable are these guesses?

So if you feel for it and find the time for it do tell me more about your take.

Jpeps what is the consequences of this then?

"Believing or not believing without experience
is two sides of the same coin."

I am too dense to follow your thought there.

1. If I have a personal experience and trust
that it somehow is related to a real God
then maybe I trust it to be full of meaning personally.

2. If somebody that I trust have a personal experience
and they trust that it somehow is related to a real God
then maybe I trust it to be reliable enough to have meaning personally.

Is that what you say?

[musher0]

Hi, noob, and all.

I think it is not so much that the existence of God can be proven/rebutted.
I think contemporary men (Westerners, certainly) cannot explain faith to
themselves in their science and technology-based world.

We might try to give "reasons" for faith, but the fact is that humans
believe. In God, in a certain political system, in a lover. (Or not...)
I have never met a human whose beliefs were not rooted in a gut feeling.

So if you expose your faith in whatever subject and it conflicts with what
the person in front in you believes, explaining it through reason can only
go so far. "Wars are always wars of religion," said André Malraux, French
novelist and politician. Because deep down, wars are about conflicting
values. But without going to the extreme of war or even agreeing with
A. Malraux, how does one become tolerant of a conflicting belief? I would
suggest: through knowledge of the other person and his/her belief(s).

If I understood Lutheran theologian Paul Tillich correctly, he saw
evidence of the existence of God in the knowledge relationship
between the learner and the object or subject learned. In the
relationship created by learning. Between an artist and his
painting, a composer and his song, a lover interested in knowing more
about his/her lover, between any student and the subject (s)he is
studying.

From there (epistemology), Tillich goes on to ontology (+/- metaphysics),
the existence of a Supreme Being. (My understanding; I read this a long
time ago.)

Another proof of the existence of God may be that humans are not self-
sufficient. We always need something or someone else, on whatever level.
Ultimately, we need actions and thoughts to have meaning. Our own
actions and thoughts, those of others, those of the society around us.

You may want to (re-)read Kierkegaard, especially the works where he
talks about faith being a "leap"...

Other paths may be the works of mystics of whatever religion.
Suggestions within Christianity: Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, or the
anonymous 14th century English monk who wrote "The Cloud of
Unknowability" (unsure about the original title, I read it in the French
translation). And there are many others.

IMHO, humans cannot be without some faith in something. Even atheism
is a "faith". Robots are entirely programmed and reasonable -- and do not
need faith, but we mere mortals have to live with the co-existence of
instinct and reason within ourselves, in other words, with emotions. We
do not wish to feel only raw instincts or act following only dry reasonings:
we strive for a balance, which is given by some form of faith.

Finally, about the logic of faith: logic poses that it is logical to expose an
argument and its contrary. Therefore, logic can declare the existence of
non-logic, but by definition it cannot access it with its own tools.

Sorry if I offended a few, but that is what I believe...
Hopefully, it will help noob on whatever path he is.

BFN.

musher0

[nooby]

Thanks musher0

You could be right I don't know
but I feel for what you say.

I think you take up something important here:

how does one become tolerant of a conflicting belief?
I would suggest: through knowledge of the other person
and his/her belief(s).

I have noticed this in myself and in other atheists
that many of us are very bad at tolerating conflicting belief.

Very many of the active atheists on atheists forums
make use of ridicule for to distance themselves from
the believers but also from fellow atheists that fail to live up to
their expectations on being logical enough.

Many atheists have lost confidence in Richard Dawkins
he is not as philosophical as they want him to be

A kind of "arms race" to show who are the brightest among atheists.

In another forum a believer had views I failed to tolerate
the only way I could deal with it was to shake my whole body
in disbelief and to say let us end this discussion while still friendly
to each other. I could not trust I would remain friendly to him another round
it was too bizarre or odd thinking.

A lot of atheists react that way to me and my confusing views.
they lost temper and can only ridicule me or to dismiss me.

I am too odd as atheist for them to stomach.
javascript:emoticon(':oops:')

I feel lost have no clue on how to proceed.

]how does one become tolerant of a conflicting belief?
I would suggest: through knowledge of the other person
and his/her belief(s).

it can work but my experiences is that it can also easily backfire
and make it much worse. The more one get to know the other
the less tolerant one get towards their views values and tactics.

I don't really know if I need God but I most likely
need like minded people so not everybody and every exchange
is with those that love to hate me and that always ridicule me.

So I feel totally lost and that is scary because it makes me lose hope
in life. I need to have at least a minimum of meaning and self worth.
To always be seen as worthless is a too big burden.

Thanks for caring about me.

[Karl Godt]

In another forum a believer had views I failed to tolerate

What or where is the other forum ?
What was said to be so odd ?

What you can do to get some Self Worth :
Get yourself a colony garden , collect some tree seeds now in autumn in Sweden ,
plant them , grow them for ten years and plant them again somewhere in the wild . They probably will survive you and be a reminder for others about you .

[greengeek]

Belief in a God requires the complete suspension of logic. Logic is just one function of the human mind (which of course is a chemical computer...) and is fallible.

If there is a God we humans lack any sufficient kind of logic to investigate it/him/her, which is why faith takes over, and faith does not lend itself to truth.

As far as Judeo-christianity goes, the God of THAT bible is apparently looking to sieve the enormous varieties of humanity into one group he calls "sheep" (the deferential butt-sniffers who don't rock the boat) and a second group that he calls "goats" (the free-thinking, accurate-minded, logic and truth seekers that God intends sending into destruction). Funnily enough "God" seems to have much the same characteristics as George Bush, Dick Cheney etc - powerful people who want a world full of brown-nosed accolytes who do exactly what they are told.

My logic tells me I'm one of the goats...

[Ibidem]

Ibidem thanks for such a detailed answer where you explain how it is seen from these points of view.

Yes that could explain why believers trust in such personal experiences
or trust that the text in the Bible do tell reliable retelling of such experiences
and therefore can be taken on faith?

Yes we have these variations in Sweden too.
Pentecostal seeing us as Spirit/soul and physical body
that can know God through the Spirit but also healed to the body
if God so decide.

Our versions the Kenneth Hagen theology from Tulsa locally do
name themselves Words of Life but AKA Words of Faith Ministries.
They have three such and the Pentecostals reacted strongly against it
when they heard about it around 1980 to 1984? Not sure when it got known
locally here. Some Pastor went to Tulsa to learn and came back having
a new theology with them.

Ah yes.
Most Pentecostals don't agree with them; "Word of Faith" is the name because they believe that if you "pray in faith" (by which they mean "pray, in full confidence that you will receive what you request"), you will necessarily receive what you prayed for.
I don't find such a promise in the Bible.
But I do believe that God heals when He wills. When I was young, my dad had sciatica or something like that (from working in construction); he was told he had the back of a 70-year old at 30. It was bad enough that he had to wear a scarf if it was less than a hundred degrees, and couldn't sit down at a desk for school work at college.
As he tells it, one day he was praying for someone, then his back started acting up and he prayed for grace to deal with it. And God said "Have I given you grace to live with this for the last five years?" He went "Yes," and God answered "So do you think that it would be any harder for me to just heal you?" to which he said "No." So he asked for healing, and within a week it was healed (as in no more pain, and new X-rays showed that where he'd had degenerated disks, they were intact).

Ibidem maybe I misunderstand you when you write this
"1. Either there is a deity such as is described, or it is a false god. "

Then you do not refer to my text what you refer to is what the Bible
say about God? The words "a deity such as is described" refers to
either my text or the official interpretation in each religious tradition???

I meant "If you describe a deity, either a deity matching that description exists or it is a false god."
(regardless what deity you are referring to)

I tried to combine the official view that some religious do have
with the logic of what the word supernatural most likely refers to.

That God has to be beyond science to measure seems to be agreed upon
by most religions? A measurable God would be too "small"

On the other hand if the Real existing God are so remote
that there is nothing you can say about God without making up
wild guesses then how reliable are these guesses?

So if you feel for it and find the time for it do tell me more about your take.

There's one word that explains a lot: "omnipresent".
Christian doctrine holds that God is everywhere.
One of the logical consequences of this is that there is nowhere that God is not.
So God is never remote, but rather "In Him we live, and move, and have our being."
But how can one measure that which is in equal measure everywhere?
Yet, the nature of the supernatural is that it can act upon the natural at its own will.
So everywhere there is the possibility of having God reveal Himself to you, but nowhere is it certain that you can observe Him.

[nooby]

greengeek then I want to be a Goat too.

But maybe Goats by their nature wants to run themselves
so not much cooperation among them?

Atheists are very much Goats that way. Almost no cooperation.
that is at least my experience. Not that believers are good at
working together but some of them at least try.

I guess being a heretic believer is as close to Goat that one can come
without being an atheist. So I am a heretic believer and not atheist then.

[nooby]

Ibidem then I understand you better.

Yes God being omni is a feature some believers like to attribute indeed.

If you describe a deity, either a deity matching that description exists
or it is a false god.
(regardless what deity you are referring to)

Then you need to be careful when describing God.
I mean who wants to be known to have a false god?

[greengeek]

Atheists are very much Goats that way. Almost no cooperation.
that is at least my experience. Not that believers are good at
working together but some of them at least try.

That would make a very good scientific study - the ratio of co-operation between atheists, versus the ratio of co-operation between believers (including believers of different religious flavours...)

[nooby]

Atheists are very much Goats that way. Almost no cooperation.
that is at least my experience. Not that believers are good at
working together but some of them at least try.

That would make a very good scientific study -
the ratio of co-operation between atheists,
versus the ratio of co-operation between believers
(including believers of different religious flavours...)

I fail to give link now but there have been some similar studies.

Some Theists build cooperative collectives where all live together
practicing farming and handy craft and similar and these groups
have been compared to Socialist and Communist groups that also
lived together cooperating.

The religious groups survived much more longer in time.
I don't remember how many years but at least 10 years
some groups have survived for hundreds of years while
many of the socialist and anarchist groups gave up on it.

If your imagine can come up with the right key words you will find it.

what could work searching for it?

survival cooperation collective religious socialst groups compared

ah close enough to give a result in the first ten results

Religion and Intragroup Cooperation: Preliminary Results of a Comparative Analysis of Utopian Communities

Richard Sosis

http://ccr.sagepub.com/content/34/1/70.abstract
if you use that one and see which others that refer to it
you may find similar studies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutterite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Confere ... n_Churches

I am not sure here in Sweden they are named something like
Brüderhof and are rather big in Canada? have existed several
hundreds years living in big collectives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish
is another such group living religious tradition.

That it works for them does not mean it is a good thing they do
they are extremely authoritarian if I get it. But so can socialists
and Communists be too.

[musher0]

Atheists are very much Goats that way. Almost no cooperation.
that is at least my experience. Not that believers are good at
working together but some of them at least try.

That would make a very good scientific study - the ratio of co-operation between atheists, versus the ratio of co-operation between believers (including believers of different religious flavours...)

Not sure. Careful here. Watch it. As a matter of fact, there are more co-ops
in latino and franco cultures than in anglo cultures... Americans generally
have a hell of a time just comprehending the true nature of co-operative
co-ownerhsip, because they are taught that co-operatives are not
individualistic enough to be "the American Way". (I know, I was asked to
write an article about "artisan co-ops" for a professional magazine
based in 'Frisco.)

Incidentally, before you send in the Marines, there are very inventive
co-ops in the US mid-West and elsewhere, except they have to go by
another label. Also, your very American Senator Stanford, of Stanford
University fame, published original thinking about co-operatives, which is
studied mostly outside the US (and that IS sad). So co-operative spirit
does exist in the US as a spur of the moment thing and in longer-term
businesses, but it is kept hush-hush. American people can be
extraordinarily generous, but they will never say it is "co-operation",
because they are taught to confuse true co-operation with communism.

So I think that the ration of co-operation in a given group has to do with
anthropology (science of human civilizations and mentalities), not religions.