The Logical Fallacies of Religion.

[TheJackel]

These are some things I would like to touch on in regards to religions that use logical fallacies to which they need not require. I often wonder why theists cling to such logical fallacies, or use them as arguments. So lets address a few of these:

The Ultimate Paradox to Creationism, Omnipotence is the following:

Information: The Material Physical Cause Of Causation

And here is why Omniscience is a logical fallacy:

OMNISCIENCE:

    Omniscience (pronounced /ɒmˈnɪsiəns/)[1] (or omniscient point-of-view in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc.

Before we can address this, the following article and post must first be addressed and understood:

*Article: Information: The Material Physical Cause of Causation This has to do with understanding information theory.

After reviewing the above, we can see that from a conscious perspective of a living Entity's perspective, Omniscience is actually a self-collapsing Logical Fallacy for many reasons to which even includes the perspective of pure Solipsism.

In regards to the Definition of Omniscience, we need to pay special attention to the words "infinite" and "everything", and then go define "Solipsism" while holding ourselves to Information theory discussed earlier.

Quoting Myself here:

   

So lets look at Omniscience from a Designers Perspective (as if you are the Omniscient GOD about to design and create something into existence. Such as a human being):

    1) I'm Omniscient

    2) I have an Idea of something I want to build, construct, or make existent

    3) I know infinitely everything about this thing, person, or place infinitely before, and infinitely after I have constructed it or even thought of it (key note: This is a logical fallacy because you can't create things from a position of Omniscience).. But we will roll with it here for sake of argument.

    A) I would know in my design everything it will infinitely ever do.

    B) I would know everything about my design's essence or being to the point of actually, and literally being that of my design (object, entity, thing, or place) in every infinitely literal way! (and we must pay close attention to the term infinite)

    C) I would know all the above infinitely in the past, present, and future.

    D) This thing I designed would only be able to do what it's was designed to do, and what I already infinitely know it will do, even to the point of it actually being me, and me doing all those things myself in every infinite way imaginable, and literally.

    E) Even if we wanted to create the logical fallacy that this thing would not be me under Omniscience, The thing itself still could never freely stray from it's predetermined fate in every infinite detail to which includes every feeling, thought, idea, emotion, action, reaction, ect. all the way down to the quantum level and substance from which it was made. That includes every infinite piece of data in regards to it's relation to every atom it's comprised of vs every other atom in existence. And infinitely so!

    So, this is why Omniscience is a logical fallacy. And technically, something that is Omniscient can't actually do anything at all because it infinitely would know, experienced, or seen everything infinitely, and infinitely in the past, present, and future. Thus something to which is conscious can not design or create anything to which it does not already know IF it is Omniscient by definition! Existence would at that point just be an infinite Picture in an infinite picture frame.. And that's not even the worst part of it, the following is even worse than the above:

    Omniscience would translate to GOD being existence itself in the best case possible, or everything that is existent in every infinite way. This is in accordance with:

    *Article: Information: The Material Physical Cause of Causation

Or:

* IF Your GOD is -->IN<--- existence.. it's irrelevant, bound to the rules it can not write, create, or circumvent. The very same rules we must follow, and follow to even be conscious.

* If Your GOD -->IS<-- existence.. Everything is GOD and thus also nullifies the argument. This also brings in the belief system of Solipsism.

* IF your GOD is ---> NOT IN <--- existence then it's irrelevant.

[Ortho_cat]

Welcome to the forum! Probably not the appropriate section for this thread though...

[TheJackel]

NON-MATERIAL:

Nothing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

Nothing is a concept that describes the absence of anything. Colloquially, the concept is often used to indicate the lack of anything relevant or significant, or to describe a particularly unimportant thing, event, or object. It is contrasted with something and everything. Nothingness is used more specifically as the state of nonexistence of everything.

Dictionary.com:

- 4 dictionary results
noth·ing
   /ˈnʌθɪŋ/ Show Spelled[nuhth-ing] Show IPA
–noun
1.
not anything; naught:
2.
no part, share, or trace (usually fol. by of ): God has no evidence to prove it's existence.
3.
something that is nonexistent.
4.
nonexistence
5.
something or someone of no importance or significance:

---

So let's explore the prefix "non":

Dictionary.com:

a prefix meaning “not,” freely used as an English formative, usually with a simple negative force as implying mere negation or absence of something

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/non-
non-
prefix
1. indicating negation / nonexistent

non (nō̂n)
adverb, interjection
1. no

Now put those into context of "Non-material". Now anyone can feel free to explain how nothing can be an existing object, person, place or thing in literal context.

[TheJackel]

Welcome to the forum! Probably not the appropriate section for this thread though...

Thanks .. I think the sections are a bit vague, and the appropriate section doesn't seem listed on the forum home page :/ But the moderator can feel free to move it, and I will gladly adjust where I post discussions like these Cheers!

[Cognomen]

The Logical Fallacies of TheJackel:

* IF Your GOD is -->IN<--- existence.. it's irrelevant, bound to the rules it can not write, create, or circumvent. The very same rules we must follow, and follow to even be conscious.

* If Your GOD -->IS<-- existence.. Everything is GOD and thus also nullifies the argument. This also brings in the belief system of Solipsism.

* IF your GOD is ---> NOT IN <--- existence then it's irrelevant.

You simply created an "existence" and a set of rules that you believe God must adhere to.  Logic is not defined as "stuff you think."

To answer the question asked in the thread title: I adhere to the logical fallacies of religion because my IQ hovers around the mid-80s, and I just don't know any better.  If someone could only come up with a short, easy to understand formula, perhaps in bullet format, I would be freed from my illogical beliefs.

[TheJackel]

Boundless:

One without boundaries or limits is another logical fallacy. Hence, what boundaries separate me from being your GOD? What boundaries make us all individuals or make us possible to exist? What things are all conscious entities bound to require in order to exist? Do you need a place to exist? Do not need information to know of your own existence? Do you not need capacity to exist?.. So to say something is boundless is to suggest something is everything and magically exists outside of everything. You can also reference Omniscience above. These also defy Omnipotence.


Creationism:

Can your supposed Godly entity design and create all the following listed things into existence when itself is slave to require them? When you can show us all how to design and create the following --> into existence <--, you might win a Nobel Prize. Can it know how to create knowledge? Can a conscious mind do anything at all without the existence of information, or base of inquiry?

* existence = impossible (slave to require)
* intelligence = impossible (Slave to require)
* information = impossible (slave to require)
* knowledge = impossible (slave to require)
* Material Physicality = impossible (slave to require) Pretty hard to exist as being made of "nothing". lol
* Experience, and experiences = impossible (slave to be an observer of reality in which it's slave to require in order to have such things) (see also information)
* Ground state of complexity or point zero = impossible (can't really have power, intelligence, Omniscience, divinity, consciousness, or self-awareness at this level)
* Empty Space = impossible ( no space = no capacity, and without capacity there is no place to exist in, or contain anything at all)
* Capacity = impossible ( see space)
* self-awareness = impossible (slave to require, and see information)
* self-identity = impossible (slave to require, and see information)
* consciousness = impossible (salve to requires, and see information)
* a place to exist in = impossible (slave to require, see capacity and space)
* mind containment = impossible (each mind is contained, must have a place to exist) (see capacity, and space, and information)
* light/dark = impossible (it's either ever only dark, light, or a mixture of both)
* infinity = equals impossible to create
* Wisdom = impsossible (slave to require, see information)
* time = impossible (the process to create time would in itself require time)
* The basic 5 senses (hearing, smell, touch, see, taste) = (must require if it is to see anything itself or even reality to which it could observe)
* observation = (slave to require, see information also)
* calculation = (pretty hard to create anything without the ability to process information) (see also information)
* manipulation (slave to require in order to create anything at all)
* thought = impossible (slave to require, see information also)
* perception = impossible (slave to require in order to be conscious)
* reality = impossible (slave to require in order to exist, observe, process, or do anything)
* complexity = impossible (slave to require, see capacity, information)
* cause and effect = impossible (slave to require, see information, capacity, mental processing, reality, complexity, perception, observation, ect)
* Morality
* Cognitive dynamics = impossible ( slave to require)
* Inertia
* Progress / progression = impossible (slave to require to even have a mental process, create, or do anything.. see also time)
* Mental Processing = impossible (slave to require) (see also information)
* Memory = impossible (slave to require in order to know or have a base of knowledge) (see information, capacity, space, self-identity, self-awareness, consciousness ect)
* Oscillation
* intent
* Ability = impossible (slave to require in order to do anything, see also information, mental processing, cognitive behavior, cause and effect)
* Positive, Negative, neutral = impossible (slave to require in order to do anything at all)
* Imagination
* Design
* Point of View
* Life
* mobility
* power
* divinity
* math = imossible (slave to require being 1 above zero, or more complex than zero) (see all the above)

(applying infinite regress here)
If you can reply to this post without matter, information, energy, material-physicality, or knowledge (base of inquiry).. I will completely concede to the existence of a GOD and Creationism!

All those things on that list are the same things we all require to exist. Minds can not create reality when they are apart of it, and made from it as emerging properties, or are slave to require it. There is no conscious entity that can solve infinite regress, or be the cause of causation.

[TheJackel]

You simply created an "existence" and a set of rules that you believe God must adhere to.  Logic is not defined as "stuff you think."

That is a self-contradiction. In fact you don't bother to address them, you simply choose to ignore them as if that is even an argument. However, I can very well state a specific set of rules:

there are 3 basic rules that govern complex, information, and energy.

Positive
Negative
Neutral

These 3 rules (laws) underpin all things of complex, and all things existent. It's the fundamental characteristics of a chaotic system to which can give rise to emergent properties such as consciousness, or the chair you sit on while reading this post. Why?

There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral; action, reaction, response, process, phenomenon, Natural selection, adaptation, ability, emotion, feeling, dynamic, function, feedback, ethic, relevance, information, state, position, point of view, thought, idea, choice, decision, system, or emerging property.


Your argument would be equal to trying to state that your GOD wouldn't require to know anything to know anything.. Sorry, but logically information theory can not be circumvented because you say:

  Logic is not defined as "stuff you think."

Especially when that is entirely a self-contradiction.. Logic is not possible without information either ;l

[Alveus Lacuna]

To answer the question asked in the thread title: I adhere to the logical fallacies of religion because my IQ hovers around the mid-80s, and I just don't know any better.  If someone could only come up with a short, easy to understand formula, perhaps in bullet format, I would be freed from my illogical beliefs.

This applies to me as well. I really think this guy might be able to help us out of the cave.

[TheJackel]

To answer the question asked in the thread title: I adhere to the logical fallacies of religion because my IQ hovers around the mid-80s, and I just don't know any better.  If someone could only come up with a short, easy to understand formula, perhaps in bullet format, I would be freed from my illogical beliefs.

Not very hard to understand the basics of complexity, or that nothing can not be a person, place, or thing in literal context. It's also not hard to understand information theory. Any excuses is just that of purely being lazy, or for the intent to not address the fallacies stated above.

This is why it's interesting to hear theists state:

"something can't come from nothing"

Well, you can't create from nothing, or the position of nothing either. And it's a good thing that in science nothing never existed, otherwise we might have had an issue here .


Do note though, this is only addressing logical fallacies. This does not mean that some entity more complex and more intelligent than man couldn't exist. This includes an entity that could have triggered a big bang since that is just a matter of physics. For all we know, we could have done so ourselves without even knowing it while playing with particle collisions. However, it's up to you if you want to call something like that "GOD" and worship it as such. GOD's are purely concepts of opinion and titles of pure opinion anyways.. I am in favor of plausibility as long as it doesn't include logical fallacies. :/

[Red A.]

This is why I it's interesting to hear theists state:

"something can't come from nothing"

Lotsa words. It woulda been easier to just produce something from nothing and then you really would have had us!

[TheJackel]

This is why I it's interesting to hear theists state:

"something can't come from nothing"

Lotsa words. It woulda been easier to just produce something from nothing and then you really would have had us!

Good thing that things don't come from nothing. "Nothing isn't nothing anymore in science". Might want to check and brush up on quantum physics.

I can give you some starters here:

Spatial capacity is to which is the capacity to exist, and have a place to exist in. This can not ever have zero literal capacity, exist as zero capacity, or exist in the form of a negative capacity. Hence, literal 0 dimensional objects, places, or things do not exist because they can not have the capacity to do so. And that is especially true for someone that would try and imply -1 dimensional capacity or something to be a-spatial..

And what is Spatial Capacity made of?

ENERGY! (Yep, that everyday stuff that even heats our homes). It's also why we know that spatial capacity is infinite.

And that also means no literal negative or zero energy can exist. This is also stated in the laws of Thermodynamics because literal zero temperature, or thermal property is impossible for this very same reason. This is from ground state to every day objects like the chair you sit in here on Planet Earth.. So we do know quite a bit, we just don't know the entire sum total there is to know between zero (ground state) and above. Chaotic systems are nearly impossible to predict, or fully understand at every level that might emerge.

So you can feel free to reference:

1) Scale:
http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/

2) You, me, and everything else on the orders of magnitude on the energy scale..as also demonstrated above under (scale):

http://talklikeaphysicist.com/2009/energy-scale-of-over-100-orders-of-magnitude/

Gravity is considered a negative energy (not literally, just opposite force in the opposite direction/attraction)This is also where expansion is considered positive energy. The total net energy is zero (not literal). This is where Zero point energy, as energy, is in a state of Equilibrium vs actually being nothing or literally zero. This is why we refer to zero-point energy or ground state. So at rest there is zero-point energy. This is where zero also = 1 or (0,1) in qbits

Zero point energy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Ground State:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_state

Vacuum Energy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

Zero Energy Calculator:
http://www.curtismenning.com/ZeroEnergyCalc.htm

The Four stages of Matter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88tK5c0wgH4
--
Quantum Electrodynamics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8R4Tz_vKEE
--
Chaos Theory and Emerging order from the coupling of positive and negative feedback:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HVRniR3GrQ
--
Butterfly effect: Secret life of Chaos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6NnCOs20GQ

--

So yes, there are gaps in our "Knowledge" of the universe, but they are actually only Gray Area Gaps in terms of physics, complexity of chaotic systems, and how exactly to infinite detail did the Big Bang happen from Quantum fluctuations of energy.

This can best be understood by the following example:

We know we are human and what we are made of, and where we relatively reside. However, we do not infinitely know everything there is to know about ourselves, or our species.. In fact we know more about the Chicken than we do about ourselves on a scientific level. So are we human? Do we need to know the entire 100% of all the infinite information we could ever gain about ourselves to understand what we are? Do we need to know everything in order to make correct assumptions of what we are based on the available and already known knowledge of what we are?

Same principle applies to Earth.. We don't need to infinitely know everything about Earth to know it's a habitable planet in a solar system labeled "sol" to which resides in the Milky-way Galaxy amongst the billions of other Galaxies...And this is why the GOD of the Gaps argument is erroneous..

You can also note these references:

Our own Universe has been measured to be flat with less than a 2 percent margin of error.

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

For clarity, like a disc floating in space similar to our own Galaxy but at a much grander scale. Thus the net Energy = zero (no lower than ground state).

Some Good source videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqb1lSdqRZY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV33t8U6w28&feature=relmfu

Other resources:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2848

http://icecube.wisc.edu/~halzen/notes/week1-3.pdf

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/lectures/early_univ.html

http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/Cosmology.html

And this is why this makes far more sense than a Nothing GOD made of nothing to which magically creates something from nothing:

Existence is seen as a phenomenal reality of physical self-oscillating, self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, matter, anything with complexity, and anything with mass possible. "A universal set of all sets". Without information, it seems there can be no consciousness, no awareness, no existence, no objects, no things, no places, or entities. Information is thus conceptually a material physical substance, or energy in different states, structures, and complexities! It's also seen under this argument as the true cause of causation of everything that exists, or can possibly ever exist. Thus all things including consciousness are emerging properties of Information, or from information.

Do you know where the idea of non-materialism came from? It was the idea that surrounded the mystery of energy to which was not seen in solid form. As in Heat, or cold. The original concept was not intended to describe nothing. However, theists have gone down that road because logical fallacies is all they have left to hold on to in order to keep the invisible sky god alive even though they don't realize they are worshiping the SUN, or that their religion has polytheistic roots  simply because Judaism does.

[88Devin12]

Interesting, but I don't think religion is supposed to have a foundation based upon logical conclusions. Religion is all about faith, not logic.
Then again, even with science these days, it's almost based upon faith as much as logic, especially since many conclusions that were thought to be solid and absolutely provable/repeatable are turning out not to be so concrete.

I don't think I've heard theist's say "something can't come from nothing"... We simply say that something DID come from nothing, it's just that we say God created everything out of nothing.
Maybe what your point is, is that atheists argue that "something came out of nothing" in the sense that there isn't a divine being that created everything.
Even then, I would say most true atheists wouldn't be opposed to the idea of a God, if he were proved to exist. They recognize that there is a possibility of the existence of a deity or some overarching being/causality. But there is no proof for it, and so they refuse to conclude that it's an absolute fact and they choose not to believe in it because of the lack of apparent concrete scientific proof.

The problem is, even "scientific proof" isn't what it was once thought to be. As mentioned before, there are many things in the scientific world that are being rocked because they are finding that there are some "laws" that are bit more shaky than once thought, and aren't quite as repeatable. The scientific method, while it might seem to lead to a solid conclusion, may, years later, lead to the opposite conclusion. Or even throughout the years, may lead to similar conclusions, but it may not be rock solid.

Check out Frederica Matthews-Green's recent podcast entitled "Scientists are Human", where she reviews/reads a recent article by an atheist who is showing the "logical fallacies" in the arguments/conclusions of other atheists. (and scientists more specifically)
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/frederica/scientists_are_human

[TheJackel]

Interesting, but I don't think religion is supposed to have a foundation based upon logical conclusions. Religion is all about faith, not logic.
Then again, even with science these days, it's almost based upon faith as much as logic, especially since many conclusions that were thought to be solid and absolutely provable/repeatable are turning out not to be so concrete.

I know religion is based on faith.. However, that only gets you so far. Faith in logical fallacies makes faith rather moot that only serves the purpose of worshiping the impossible for the sake of doing so while knowing it's impossible. I don't mind faith in what is plausible, but when you get those things to start becoming Theocritus or trying to inject them into the education system, it becomes a problem. Such as what creationists are trying to do. And science is not based of Faith.. It's based on what evidence and body of facts support any given theory (theory in science is regarded as facts open to further understanding). The scientific method's purpose is to prove itself wrong. It's far more honest than those with blind assumptions that don't even bother to critically think about their assumptions.

Many of science's conclusions will indeed prove to be wrong, but not totally wrong! Hence, further information leads to further understanding. This means that not all of the information or body of facts that supported a theory to which had been proven wrong will magically go down the toilet. Further information may bring more light to those body of facts to which improves a theories accuracy or changes it to be more correct. It's a process, and it's also why you have a computer in front of you right now.

 

I don't think I've heard theist's say "something can't come from nothing"... We simply say that something DID come from nothing, it's just that we say God created everything out of nothing.

That would be a logical fallacy.

Maybe what your point is, is that atheists argue that "something came out of nothing" in the sense that there isn't a divine being that created everything.

In correct. And again please read above as to why this is incorrect.

Even then, I would say most true atheists wouldn't be opposed to the idea of a God, if he were proved to exist. They recognize that there is a possibility of the existence of a deity or some overarching being/causality.

Ahh no!, because GOD's still remain concepts of pure opinion. Atheist view can include that your GOD would have no more relevance than a dust bunny on his desk because neither can create existence, or the rules to existence itself. It's a goal post we call Infinite regress.

But there is no proof for it, and so they refuse to conclude that it's an absolute fact and they choose not to believe in it because of the lack of apparent concrete scientific proof.

Incorrect. I can believe somethings as plausible so long as they don't include logical fallacies of total and utter implausibility. But yes, proof would be required for any kind of validation or substantiation. Hence, I wouldn't blindly believe in something or take it literally until proven otherwise.

The problem is, even "scientific proof" isn't what it was once thought to be. As mentioned before, there are many things in the scientific world that are being rocked because they are finding that there are some "laws" that are bit more shaky than once thought, and aren't quite as repeatable.

In correct. there will always be gaps in our knowledge.. But what you seem to be trying to do is create a GOD of the Gaps argument. Well, anything between ground state and above is really not relevant.. And that is where 99.9 percent of your argument sits .

And yes scientists are human.. Not really a relevant argument.. We can still understand the basics of complexity, understand information theory, and understand that nothing can not be a person, place, object, substance, or thing. This stance on human limits of yours will not make fallacies stretch into the realm of plausibility.

[Shiny]

You can't put God into a test tube.

A thing can exist whether we know it or not. Now to know the existence of God you must first presuppose that you can know God exists. We can also lead our knowing of things without reasons, however we can have reason for the knowledge of God. These reasons may not serve as proof but rather as probabilities. For example I'm in an airplane and at any moment the construction of it could fall apart. However the constructor or the materials used could give me well enough thinking that this is highly unlikely.

I think you misunderstand the "Nothing comes nothing" argument because obviously God is something to put something else into motion. To say "God is nothing" places Him into the realm of the material world which was thus created, therefore God could not exist. God is outside of creation deeming Himself to be uncreated by nature. Same with being called eternal, because God is outside of time therefore God is eternal.

God is a great mystery however this isn't special pleading because we do not exactly know the essence of God to define Him logically. Rather to experience God is to be in action not to be excercising the brain muscle.

[Shiny]

I know religion is based on faith.. However, that only gets you so far. Faith in logical fallacies makes faith rather moot that only serves the purpose of worshiping the impossible for the sake of doing so while knowing it's impossible.

You could not have faith in God or a god based solely on logic. It must come from divine revelation. This is why the Incarnation of the Word supersedes logic and falls into the realm of mystery (in this case for us as divine revelation). Or why the Holy Trinity is a mystery that cannot be explained logically.

I'll give you a story about St. Augustine. He was walking on the beach trying to figure out the Holy Trinity in his mind and it constantly befuddled him. He came across a child who was digging a hole and going to the ocean and putting water in this hole. St. Augustine approached him and said "What is it that you are doing my child?". The boy said "I am going to fit this entire ocean into this small hole" and Augustine retorted "Well surely you can't fit this whole ocean into this hole." Then the boy said "And what makes you think you can contain the Trinitarian infinite God into your mind?". And with that the boy vanished, he was actually a little angel. St. Augustine then praised God for this revelation and ease his intellectual despair.

I don't mind faith in what is plausible, but when you get those things to start becoming Theocritus or trying to inject them into the education system, it becomes a problem.

Depends on what sort of area of the faith we are trying to follow out logically. However faith isn't something that is to be placed under the microscope persay, it must be tried on by the individual.  

And science is not based of Faith.. It's based on what evidence and body of facts support any given theory (theory in science is regarded as facts open to further understanding). The scientific method's purpose is to prove itself wrong. It's far more honest than those with blind assumptions that don't even bother to critically think about their assumptions.

The scientific method cannot be used to prove the scientific method (or verify it). Theories are regarded on facts? I can theorize dark matter and dark energy, but that does not make it a fact. For example Einstein postualted the cosmological constant of the universe but admitted it was the greatest blunder of his life.

Many of science's conclusions will indeed prove to be wrong, but not totally wrong!

The same could be said of materialism then. Your stance for example is all that exists is the material could be proven wrong.

Ahh no!, because GOD's still remain concepts of pure opinion. Atheist view can include that your GOD would have no more relevance than a dust bunny on his desk because neither can create existence, or the rules to existence itself. It's a goal post we call Infinite regress.

If there was an infinite number of movers in a sort of chain system, nothing could be in motion without a first causal mover. If no motion ever began then nothing can exist, but there is motion and we do exist hence there is a first cause.

Incorrect. I can believe somethings as plausible so long as they don't include logical fallacies of total and utter implausibility. But yes, proof would be required for any kind of validation or substantiation. Hence, I wouldn't blindly believe in something or take it literally until proven otherwise.

Why should God have to prove Himself to you in ways of something that is tangible?

[TheJackel]

You can't put God into a test tube.

It's Existence as just an idea.. Or for it to actually exist beyond just an idea it would have to be IN existence. Hence test tube regardless of how you want to argue.

A thing can exist whether we know it or not.

Irrelevant..

Now to know the existence of God you must first presuppose that you can know God exists. We can also lead our knowing of things without reasons, however we can have reason for the knowledge of God. These reasons may not serve as proof but rather as probabilities. For example I'm in an airplane and at any moment the construction of it could fall apart. However the constructor or the materials used could give me well enough thinking that this is highly unlikely.

Your argument is similar to the following: (note the reply is copy pasted from another article on Newsvine..)

Theist stated:

   There have been any number of studies over the last few years indicating that the human brain is "primed" for religion.

My Reply:

This is a similar logical fallacy as the one posted above to where pleading for ignorance is a tactic commonly used by theists. The human mind of course develops into an organ capable of thoughts, ideas, abstract perception and opinion. The argument above is entirely baseless However.. It's the sly use of the term "Primed" in order to inject a blind faith assertion that it was designed and created. A nice example of a Carl Sagan move there. But hey, the mind is also perfectly suited for the absence, and total rejection there of. It's capable of science, logic, and reason. All this to which entirely collapses the logical fallacy or plea for ignorance argument above. There is a reason why I wrote that article.. Information: The Material Physical Cause of Causation. This pertains to everything discussed, and everything below.. Understanding this is key to understanding the world around us.

---

So back to the subject. I would first suggest that we might want to look into who does those studies above.. Little hint, it's not by the body of the scientific community in the majority of those so called studies. However, it's irrelevant regardless because it is already known that they human brain develops different ways to interpret information into abstract reasoning, or into such things as ideological constructs such as religion, atheism, polytheism, or that red trucks are kewl.

THIS IS HOW THE PERCEPTION GAME WORKS AND HOW IT RELATES TO RELIGION:

  

I like this specific red truck, and all other red trucks because they are AWESOME!.. What? You don't like my specific red truck, or any red trucks? BLASPHEMOUS!..

Our perception of reality doesn't change reality, it only changes how we perceive things, how we abstractly interpret things we observe, sense, or feel things.. The red truck will remain a red truck as currently observed regardless of either persons perception of the same information. So yes, it's well understood that people may perceive two identical (for sake of argument) experiences with identical information in different abstract points of view.

Example:

People use to view the SUN as GOD!.. Well, technically they had a lot of real world observations to abstractly perceive it to be a GOD. However, further knowledge will reveal it to not be even if those who think it still is, still believe it to be. Regardless of the religious or science view of the SUN, it won't change that it's a Giant Ball of Gas cooking off hydrogen in a fusion reaction to which brings us the light!.

---

So here in lies the scientific problem to the concept of GOD when dealing with the human brain, and why religions beg for you to believe in order for GOD to exist to you..:

An Idea is a collection of thoughts (information) to which are tied to human emotions (further information to be attached to the above)... Yes the idea exists as an idea, but they know the idea has zero relevance beyond that in the real world outside the mind. Thus duplication is thus required for the idea to survive and to have further relevance while knowing there is zero evidence (carl sagan dragon) to support it.

Example:

The Idea of a Dog, or even a random pattern of information is only an informational representation of either an observed thing such as a Dog, or a random collection of words in the human language to which can give rise to abstract ideas ( Such as: One, Eyed, Green, Monster). The problem is with religious people and why they have to argue from a Carl Sagan's Dragon positions is as follows:

The Idea is not the object of the IDEA!.. Hence the mental representation of a DOG or a One Eyed Green Monster is -->NOT THE <-- actual DOG or MONSTER!.. It has no relevance until proven otherwise in accordance to the scientific Method and reality.

Hence, Carl Sagan Dragon Positions and arguments are irrelevant! And all theists are doing without knowing it (or knowing it), is professing the existence of an idea through emotional attachment to the idea to which includes their own abstract interpretation and perception of the idea behind the GOD concept. This is to which they are taught without any attempt at providing proof, or evidence to authenticate and validate such faith based ideas.

These are the basic fundamentals of information theory, and how tools for brainwashing and programming people are developed. This is fundamentally how Faith comes about. It's the engineering of devotion and faith by attaching emotion to concepts, ideologies, symbols, Icons, Idols, thoughts, and Ideas... it's about manipulation of thought and emotion.

And this is how I was taught to advertise when I was doing advertising for Churches across the midwest. Hence, you can read this link here:

Religious brainwashing: how it's done.

---

You can also reference such books as:

* Brainwashing: The science of Thought Control
* Mind Control 101: How to influence the thoughts and actions of others without them knowing or caring
* Combating Cult Mind Control
* Brainwash: The Secret History of Mind Control

Or even articles like:

http://shrink4men.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/the-mechanics-of-parental-alienation-programming-and-brainwashing/

So before anyone replies here, you must understand information theory. I have done advertising for Churches for many years.. And the books I referenced don't just help people address religion as they do in regards to more general aspects of life. Such as politics, propaganda, news, and product sales ect.

I think you misunderstand the "Nothing comes nothing" argument because obviously God is something to put something else into motion.

GOD would require more complexity and cause, and thus can not answer that argument. And energy self-oscillates, and can interfere with itself. This is why you have the Quantum foam.. the 3 basic laws of a chaotic system to which are the fundamental properties of energy itself. Positive, negative, and neutral. Energy doesn't require anything other than itself to put things into motion. And that is because energy is an ever flowing system. It's the substance of existence itself to where information and energy are regarded as two sides of the same coin from which complex arises from. Hence, you only need Energy! So that brings you right back to:

Ground state

To say "God is nothing" places Him into the realm of the material world which was thus created, therefore God could not exist. God is outside of creation deeming Himself to be uncreated by nature. Same with being called eternal, because God is outside of time therefore God is eternal.

Circular argument that makes no intelligible sense. No, that states that GOD as it now is at best only an Idea. No different than a One Eyed Green Monster. However, Trying to rationalize nothing as a something isn't going to make nothing something .

[TheJackel]

TRUTH VS FALLACY:

So the first thing we must do is establish the differences between truth, faith, and belief.. You can say this is Truth VS Fallacy, and that we all know truth only comes to be realized when it has faced rigorously harsh doses of self scrutiny. So what is the differences between truth, belief, and faith? Well, how about we find out by taking a closer look at each of these terms so we can establish a foundation for determining how they apply to the world we live in.

* Truth: substantiated unarguable information that is validated without possible argument against, or to where evidence is sufficient to give it substantial value.
* Faith: The hoping of what you think is divine truth is actually true when there is no means of validation to give it substantiation.. It's a means to keep one believing irregardless if it's proven false, irrelevant, as a logical fallacy, or simply impossible.

* Belief :

A: Religion - believing in what you perceive to be true irregardless of validity, and in this case it is highly dependent on Faith for support. Otherwise a collapse of belief would likely occur (me as an example of a former Christian), or the denial of reality will likely occur in order for a belief to be held.

B: Science, logic, and reason - Believing what what is true by the evidence to which supports it.

Example Truth:

    Absolute substantiated fact = Existence can be verified without argument to exist simply because non-existence can not be a literal person, place, or thing of existence. Non-existence can not be a literal noun!

Example Fallacy:

    A faith based belief = believing a GOD created existence without having to explain how one can preexist existence in order to create it.

What has all the weight in relevance to reality?
* The one with all the evidence to support it.

Which one has intellectual integrity?
* The one with all the evidence to support it
* The one willing to self-scrutinize it's beliefs in favor of reaching for a definable and tangible truth based on the Scientific Method, logic, and reason to where the evidence dictates the value of the belief system in order to avoid being dictated or clung to logical fallacies.
* The one that doesn't assume it's truth, or truth without evidence.


Thus my article to which had been posted here (Information: The Material Physical Cause of Causation) by someone, and then ignored or chastised without even taking the time to understand what it states shows that many people are simply not able to honestly debate, or engage in the subject. Information theory is very well grounded and is proven to not to be circumventable. The very mere use of communication will validate it. Neither you or a supposed GOD could reply, or exist without it. Thus complex derives from basis of it's substance and not that which is slave to require it. No entity can solve infinite regress, exist outside of containment (capacity), have zero value, have zero substance (see value), oh have not parts or composition. These are fundamentally attributes to describe what non-existence means. It's total and utter irrelevance by definition.

Energy =/= information = substance = value = purpose = existence.

[Papist]

Trying to Convert, I am going to give you some constructive criticism. You are a terribel philosopher. You really know nothing about. I suggest that before you enter these debates, you engage serious literature on the matter. I highly suggest the works of professor Edward Feser.
Now your arguments.

* IF Your GOD is -->IN<--- existence.. it's irrelevant, bound to the rules it can not write, create, or circumvent. The very same rules we must follow, and follow to even be conscious.

No. If our God exists, He is the First Cause, as argued in another thread. Therefore, He is standard of being. The rule is Him. All other beings are measured by His absolute existence. The rules He created to govern material reality are do not bind Him. He binds them.
The God that you are arguing against is not the Infinite God of Christianity, not even the god of philosophy. You are arguing against the old pagan concept of a god that is merely part of the system, not one that transcends it.

* If Your GOD -->IS<-- existence.. Everything is GOD and thus also nullifies the argument. This also brings in the belief system of Solipsism.

Not at all. When we apply the term "existence" to God and to our finite changing universe, the term is only applied analogically. When we apply it to God we mean, absolute, infinite, ulimited, self-existence. When we apply it to our limited universe, we mean, finite, changing and derived existence. Becuase of God's ulimitedness, He would not be identified with the universe because that would place a limit on Him, by making Him the limited universe. Further, not being the limited universe does not limit Him because He is not in competition with the exitence of the universe. He is utterly beyond it.

* IF your GOD is ---> NOT IN <--- existence then it's irrelevant.

God is absolute existence itself, beyond our finite limited "sort-of" existence.

[theo philosopher]

Trying to Convert, I am going to give you some constructive criticism. You are a terribel philosopher. You really know nothing about. I suggest that before you enter these debates, you engage serious literature on the matter.

This about summarizes the reply I was going to make.

[ialmisry]

Quoting Myself here:

And chasing your tail.

   

* IF Your GOD is -->IN<--- existence.. it's irrelevant, bound to the rules it can not write, create, or circumvent. The very same rules we must follow, and follow to even be conscious.

* If Your GOD -->IS<-- existence.. Everything is GOD and thus also nullifies the argument. This also brings in the belief system of Solipsism.

* IF your GOD is ---> NOT IN <--- existence then it's irrelevant.

Our God is beyond existence, so all your sophism is irrelevant.

[ialmisry]

Trying to Convert, I am going to give you some constructive criticism. You are a terribel philosopher. You really know nothing about. I suggest that before you enter these debates, you engage serious literature on the matter.

This about summarizes the reply I was going to make.

Is The Jackel Tryingtoconvert?

[Shiny]

He's not TtC.

[Papist]

Trying to Convert, I am going to give you some constructive criticism. You are a terribel philosopher. You really know nothing about. I suggest that before you enter these debates, you engage serious literature on the matter.

This about summarizes the reply I was going to make.

Is The Jackel Tryingtoconvert?

It turns out that he is not, BUT he demonstrates the same kind of thinking.

[Shiny]

I love how it's irrelevant that a thing can exist whether we know it or not.

[TheJackel]

It turns out that he is not, BUT he demonstrates the same kind of thinking.

Is this typical Dogma applied to anyone that engages in an opposing position to your religious views? I don't think I'm all too worried about whether or not you convert to anything. It's more interesting to me that you would resort to these kind of arguments to deflect and ignore from having to address my posts. You have the free choice to engage in this discussion, or not to engage. If you choose to engage, please refrain from off-topic deflections, or dogma and stay on topic while providing some sort of intellectual integrity or honesty in the debate :/

How about this, and I will make it simple.. With a yes or no answer, can you think, feel, apply, or do anything without information, energy, capacity, material-physicality, or complexity? Careful of your reply here, some critical thinking required in regards to information theory

My answer: No

Minds can only observe and process information, and require to be a complex system of information themselves. Minds can not create that which they themselves require to exist, and thus can not solve infinite regress because they are products of existence and not the creators of.. That list I gave you, is what we all equally require to exist. Thus there is no such thing as an un-caused state of consciousness because it is slave to require that to which it can not create:

1) A place to exist in - It must have containment
2) Capacity to exist - Dimensional value - spatial value
3) Informational value
4) Substance - Nothing can not be a person, place, or thing.
5) complexity greater than ground state
6) Time or to be temporally bound in order to even have the ability to process information, or think.

So how complex is your GOD vs man? The more complexity and power you try and give something, the more cause it will require to exist. Same reason why 5 can't create 0-4 and itself so itself can exist. Complexity doesn't begin from the top people, it begins and starts from the lowest level possible to where infinite regress is solved by an impossible juncture where regression can go no further. And that deals with informational Capacity in accordance to information theory. Without capacity, there can be no informational value, complexity, structure, or even GODS to which you would like to worship.

[Papist]

It turns out that he is not, BUT he demonstrates the same kind of thinking.

Is this typical Dogma applied to anyone that engages in an opposing position to your religious views? I don't think I'm all too worried about whether or not you convert to anything. It's more interesting to me that you would resort to these kind of arguments to deflect and ignore from having to address my posts. You have the free choice to engage in this discussion, or not to engage. If you choose to engage, please refrain from off-topic deflections, or dogma and stay on topic while providing some sort of intellectual integrity or honesty in the debate :/

Actually, I have yet to see you address the substance of the true theistic arguments. Rather, most of your posts contain assertions without any true logical demonstration. I have engaged your posts, and you have, as of yet, not responded to any of my arguments. When you do so, you might then have a leg to stand on. Until then, I await your resonse.

How about this, and I will make it simple.. With a yes or no answer, can you think, feel, apply, or do anything without information, energy, capacity, material-physicality, or complexity?

Careful of your reply here, some critical thinking required

Criticial thinking: Something you have not yet demonstrated. (BTW, Critical thinking is impossible in your materialistic framework, as demonstrated by Hume).
Now, you have once again stacked the deck in your favor, by requiring me to answer the question on your terms. The question is more complex than you allow for, and thus there is no way to provide a simple answer, without providing you with the opportunity to engage in sophistry.
Can I think, feel, apply, or do anthing without information, capacity, physical activity, or complexity? Of course not. Because, at least one part of my composite nature is material: requiring energy, physicality, complexity.
BUT, since God is none of these things (as demonstrated by my argument in a previous post, an argument that you have yet to address), he would not require them.
Again, your argument falls entirely flat. Your thoughts are stillborn.

[TheJackel]

I love how it's irrelevant that a thing can exist whether we know it or not.

It is because we are not discussing things that can be said to actually be plausible.. This thread is addressing logical fallacies of religion, information theory, and have zero relevance to whether or not something (that must be possible to exist) exists or not. It's quite simple, Logical fallacies don't actually exist beyond the conceptual idea any more than a negative spatial capacity could. You could thus feel free to properly address the subject.

If you can post a reply here without material-physicality, capacity, information, or energy (all to which are the same coin), I will gladly accept the notion of a GOD. So can you convey a message, think, process, observe, do, act, reply, without the above? Well, the answer is obviously not! Welcome to cause and effect in regards to causation  Welcome to the rules of complexity, and the rules of existence to which you are slave to require and can not write. This is why theists tend to try and place attributes of non-existence, and logical fallacies to their GOD concept. They have a complexity problem that nullifies the entire premise of their argument "/

[Papist]

Minds can only observe and process information, and require to be a complex system of information themselves.

You didn't finish that sentence. you missed: "If they are fininte, limited and changing"

Minds can not create that which they themselves require to exist, and thus can not solve infinite regress because they are products of existence and not the creators of.. That list I gave you, is what we all equally require to exist.[/quote]
Minds cannot create what they need to exist, but God needs nothing for his existence, because he is unlimited, absolute, infinte existence itself. He is the First Cause, and requires no cause, I proved earlier.

 Thus there is no such thing as an un-caused state of consciousness because it is slave to require that to which it can not create:

If it is the first cause, and unlimited, infinite, and transcends the finite universe, then you argument has no meaning. Again, you are arguing against the pagan gods, who are nothing more than super-heros like the x-men. When will you address the arguments for the monotheistic God?

1) A place to exist in - It must have containment

only if you are talking about limited being.

2) Capacity to exist - Dimensional value - spatial value

only if you are talking about limited being

3) Informational value

I am not quite sure what you mean here. If you mean it must be empirically verifiable, then you first have to get me to buy into your materialist/empiricist epistemology, which I do not. In fact, this entire conversation demonstrates the impossibility of your epistemology. Further, a infinite, unlimited, being would not possibly be empircally verifiable for limited, finite beings. God would have to be absolutely beyond us. So again,
Not for unlimited being.
BTW, there are ways to know that things exists outside of empiricism.

4) Substance - Nothing can not be a person, place, or thing.

Not to sound repetitive, but "not for unlimited being."
Look buddy, we apply these terms "person" and "substance" to God by analogy. But if he is unlimited, he is certainly beyond human understanding of such terms and categories.

5) complexity greater than ground state

I already provided you with proof that God is simple today. You have not addressed this. As for this ground state issue, God transcends that. So it's applicable. Further, his simplicity is not non-existence, but absolute existence, and you have yet to address that. You keep attacking a straw man.

6) Time or to be temporally bound in order to even have the ability to process information, or think.

Not for unlimited being. Because God is simple and unlimited, he understands all in one act of knowing, that is Him. You keep applying limiting principles but our God is infinite and unlimited.

So how complex is your GOD vs man? The more complexity and power you try and give something, the more cause it will require to exist. Same reason why 5 can't create 0-4 and itself so itself can exist. Complexity doesn't begin from the top people, it begins and starts from the lowest level possible to where infinite regress is solved by an impossible juncture where regression can go no further. And that deals with informational Capacity in accordance to information theory. Without capacity, there can be no informational value, complexity, structure, or even GODS to which you would like to worship.

Again, not for unlimited being. You really need to address what monotheists actually believe in, and not your pet strawman.

[Papist]

Ok buddy, here ya go:
1. Everything that begins to exist must have a sufficient cause for it's existence.
2. Right now there are many things causing me to exist (including the parts that make me up).
3. The chain of things causing me to exist is either infinite or finite.
4. If the chain is infinite, then there is no sufficient reason for the existence of the chain, as each being depends on another for existence, but then none actually has being. Therefore, nothing would exist. But clearly things exist.
5. Therefore the chain is finite and has a First Cause.
6. The First Cause is either composed of parts or is simple.
7. If the First Cause is composed of parts, then it depends on the composition of its parts for its existence.
8. But then this would mean that the First Cause is caused, which is a contradiction.
9. Therefore the First Cause must be simple.

[TheJackel]

Actually, I have yet to see you address the substance of the true theistic arguments. Rather, most of your posts contain assertions without any true logical demonstration. I have engaged your posts, and you have, as of yet, not responded to any of my arguments. When you do so, you might then have a leg to stand on. Until then, I await your resonse.

Actually I have.. Already addressed in regards to information theory. Theistic arguments are irrelevant and are also slave to require it. This makes me wonder how many of you actually understand this debate. :/

Criticial thinking: Something you have not yet demonstrated.

Actually your very reply demonstrates my point exactly.

 (BTW, Critical thinking is impossible in your materialistic framework, as demonstrated by Hume).

Incorrect. And your reply again is a self-contradiction.

Now, you have once again stacked the deck in your favor

,


Ahh yes, more dogma in order to not actually address the argument. I didn't realize information theory is stacking the deck.. Oh wait! it's a pre-stacked deck to which you required to make that post! Please try using some intellectual integrity in your responses vs resorting to nonsensical dogma and deflections. There is a reason why you are not going to be able to circumvent this argument, and that is exactly why you are resorting to the claim of a "stacked deck".. News flash, reality isn't fair, nor is it going to magically bend to your ideological points a view so you can feel that it isn't a stacked deck against you..

by requiring me to answer the question on your terms.

These aren't my terms, these are terms determined by information theory and reality son. I merely point them out for you. Your inability to address those terms is not my problem because I am equally bound to those terms. Information theory is not at all hard to understand sir, it's been well established for a very long time both philosophically, and scientifically.

The question is more complex than you allow for, and thus there is no way to provide a simple answer, without providing you with the opportunity to engage in sophistry.

Incorrect. The game of complexity states that the only answer is the simplest possible point where regression can not regress any further without becoming literal nothing. You might want to try and address that, especially in terms of consciousness.. It takes far more cause for us to be conscious than it does for the vacuum of space to exist.

Can I think, feel, apply, or do anthing without information, capacity, physical activity, or complexity? Of course not. Because, at least one part of my composite nature is material: requiring energy, physicality, complexity.

You are starting to catch on here. You only need now to understand that nothing is not a substance to which can support an existence. Non-materialism is literally stating non-existence by definition. So yes, your GOD should you think it were to exist would be bound to follow those very same rules and thus can not be the answer to existence, or infinite regress.

BUT, since God is none of these things (as demonstrated by my argument in a previous post, an argument that you have yet to address), he would not require them.

Here we go again to regressing to Nhillism as if that will win the debate! Even the idea of your GOD can not exist without those things. But hey, have fun in the faith of a nothing god..Atheists will be more than happy to accept that answer.

Again, your argument falls entirely flat. Your thoughts are stillborn.

Ahh, more social dogma? That was really intellectual of you. /sarcasm.

[CRCulver]

This makes me wonder how many of you actually understand this debate. :/

Quite a few people here have formal training in the philosophy of religion, myself included.

For the rest of you, reading through TheJackel's website suggests that he isn't your typical, good-faith proponent of atheist philosophy, but rather suffers from some mental illness. I wouldn't waste your time engaging with him.

[Papist]

This makes me wonder how many of you actually understand this debate. :/

Quite a few people here have formal training in the philosophy of religion, myself included.

For the rest of you, reading through TheJackel's website suggests that he isn't your typical, good-faith proponent of atheist philosophy, but rather suffers from some mental illness. I wouldn't waste your time engaging with him.

Considering TheJackel's last post, I think you are right.

[TheJackel]

1. Everything that begins to exist must have a sufficient cause for it's existence.

Yep, and that is why spatial capacity, energy, information, and complexity begin at ground state. A state to which no further regression can be made simply because Nothing in literal context is impossible to exist. Consciousness, entities, life, chairs, ect can not solve this. Thus are irrelevant to existence because they are only products of.

2. Right now there are many things causing me to exist (including the parts that make me up).

Good Job! Now apply infinite regress and figure out how relevant your current state is to existence. You want to cause of causation right? Looking for that answer to why you exist isn't going to be found in another object, entity, or thing that is more complex than ground state, or you for that matter. If you want to worship something that you think made you like a cabbage patch doll, that's fine and dandy. But that doesn't make it capable to defy the same rules it must equally be bound to in order to exist itself. Fundamentally the only difference between you and this said diety is how much more able it could do things you seemingly are not able to do. Or how much more intelligent you think it is than you are. Problem is, it will require more cause to exist than you just because of it. It's a self-collapsing concept to begin with. And worse yet, an alien species more intelligent than man can easily suffice to fill that position. Or even man itself further in the future.

3. The chain of things causing me to exist is either infinite or finite.

That would be finite. There are several boundaries I can list here to which will satisfy that nicely. However, not really relevant to the subject because it too is bound to information theory, and material-physicality.

4. If the chain is infinite, then there is no sufficient reason for the existence of the chain, as each being depends on another for existence, but then none actually has being. Therefore, nothing would exist. But clearly things exist.

If it were infinite, you would be trying to argue pure solipsism. Sounds like you are trying to make GOD is existence argument.

5. Therefore the chain is finite and has a First Cause.

First cause would be the lowest level of complexity possible, and the substance of that. Anything else is entirely irrelevant to existence. And that includes said deity.

6. The First Cause is either composed of parts or is simple.

Both, and the Parts of it's base require no cause because the base has been shown to solve infinite regress by a literal opposite impossible. Something science has already done. So you can feel free to reference Capacity, ground state, information and energy.. Energy = all of those at the lowest possible level.

Your argument argues for an incredibly complex Deity while science argues for the source of complexity itself known as energy to which retain the basic fundamental laws of existence (positive, negative, and neutral) to which lead to complex such as this very post, or my very own thoughts!

7. If the First Cause is composed of parts, then it depends on the composition of its parts for its existence.

The parts of existence is the substance of existence itself.. Anything of complex that arises from it is not relevant to existence itself but slave to it for it's complexity

Example:

A glass Jar (metaphorically you, me, your GOD, or even the chair you sit in) can not be a glass object, or the complex structure of information it is without the sand from which its made from. The sand can not exist without the atoms and elements on the periodic table from which it's made from. None of those things can exist without the energy to which they are comprised of. The capacity for them to exist is equally bound to the same rules. Thus nothing of complex can answer the question of where it all begins, or began! And this is why Atheists have it correct when they say "who created your GOD?"..  Energy = the solving of infinite regress, and the establishment of a Universal Set of all Sets.  Energy =/= existence, information, capacity, and substance.

8. But then this would mean that the First Cause is caused, which is a contradiction.

Incorrect.. First cause is related to capacity to exist and the substance of that capacity to which it is made from. You can think of existence as an infinite volume of sand of all sands to where various objects, or things of complex can emerge from because the system itself is self-organizing, self-oscillating, and chaotic by virtue of the attributes of it's nature (positive, negative, and neutral). This is also why even pure solipsism would fail to address the argument!

9. Therefore the First Cause must be simple.

Correct, and it is. It's called Energy, not GOD. The substance of existence itself to which makes all things of complex possible. This is how information theory works.

[TheJackel]

I wouldn't waste your time engaging with him.

This is like saying don't waste your time trying to intellectually engage in an honest debate. But if you require this argument as a position, you would be correct in your statement of being a waste of time because it actually requires you to address the logical fallacies of your position. If you can't honestly address those fallacies, why are you engaging in the debate to begin with?

For the rest of you, reading through TheJackel's website suggests that he isn't your typical, good-faith proponent of atheist philosophy, but rather suffers from some mental illness. I wouldn't waste your time engaging with him.

Good faith proponent doesnt' contradict themselves in their own statements here. Nor does one use social dogma as an argument of debate.

but rather suffers from some mental illness.

This is equal to scientologists calling anyone that doesn't agree with their ideological constructs and philosophies as evil, child rapists, or murders. Because if you actually had an honest argument of debate, you might actually realize futility of your use of such dogma.

[bogdan]

The God that you are arguing against is not the Infinite God of Christianity, not even the god of philosophy. You are arguing against the old pagan concept of a god that is merely part of the system, not one that transcends it.

I would like Jackel to respond to this. He has ignored this point every time, and continues to base his arguments on a god of straw that we worship only in Jackel's mind.

[Sleeper]

The God that you are arguing against is not the Infinite God of Christianity, not even the god of philosophy. You are arguing against the old pagan concept of a god that is merely part of the system, not one that transcends it.

I would like Jackel to respond to this. He has ignored this point every time, and continues to base his arguments on a god of straw that we worship only in Jackel's mind.

That's all TryingtoConvert ever did too. They don't know how to argue against the God of Orthodoxy.

[TheJackel]

The God that you are arguing against is not the Infinite God of Christianity, not even the god of philosophy. You are arguing against the old pagan concept of a god that is merely part of the system, not one that transcends it.

I would like Jackel to respond to this. He has ignored this point every time, and continues to base his arguments on a god of straw that we worship only in Jackel's mind.

Ahh the transcending of the system.. So your GOD wouldn't require information, or informational value in order to know, exist, or even be an ideological construct? Yeah, transcending reality into non-existence is pretty interesting stance to which I really don't mind accepting as your argument. you do realize the defecting to the other side of the argument doesn't win the debate correct? To be outside capacity alone would translate to non-existence of one's self. Logical fallacies will not magically become possible just because you can string a few words together to create a logical fallacy.

And I am arguing against any GOD sir, this has little to do with just the Pagan concept. If you feel you need to attach attributes that define non-existence to your GOD in order to feel like you have a winning argument, then feel free to do so. Every Atheist I know will gladly accept those terms of your argument to which translates to the nothing GOD but an idea GOD of a logical fallacy.

 

[TheJackel]

That's all TryingtoConvert ever did too. They don't know how to argue against the God of Orthodoxy.

Incorrect, my arguments are stating a fact of reality. Your inability to deal with it is not my problem. And if I were trying to convert you, I would come out and say you should convert. I am pretty direct and blunt with my positions. If you can't properly address my arguments, then don't bother posting a reply. Especially when you can't do so without contradicting yourself against the very principles of my arguments.

[TheJackel]

Can anyone here ever show me a Nothing Object? I am curious to see something made of nothing to which transcends the capacity of existence. o.O  Maybe that's why it's faith based. :/ When I was a Christian, I never took such a stance because I knew it was a logical fail in every way. I put more realistic views into the concept of GOD that never relied on logical fallacies. The only reason I don't believe in GOD's doesn't stem solely from my material-physical realist position even though it plays a major role in establishing that Atheistic stance.. It actually stems largely from this argument as well:

   Title of GOD is a Title of opinion. Thus no god exists, or ever existed regardless of entities that may or may not exist.

What this implies is the following:

    What it means is that such beliefs and titles are merely just that, and they are solely reliant on only those who give such titles, or believe in such things. Opinions only have worth to that which has the opinion. Hence, what are GOD's without something to grant them such a title? Under this logic GODS are inherently undefined to the extent that anything can be considered a GOD should the title be given. This includes you, the dirt you walk on, myself, birds, existence itself, or anything in or of existence. So either all things are GODS, or there are no such things as GODS!

And this too applies directly to information theory as stated above.

[Iconodule]

Your face is a logical fallacy.

[TheJackel]

Your face is a logical fallacy.

Ok, let's keep the self-contradictions going? Seriously though, is that behavior even necessary?

[Sleeper]

That's all TryingtoConvert ever did too. They don't know how to argue against the God of Orthodoxy.

Incorrect, my arguments are stating a fact of reality. Your inability to deal with it is not my problem.

I enjoy your conflation of my disinterest in replying to an inability to do so. Here I thought you were "stating facts about reality."  

And if I were trying to convert you, I would come out and say you should convert. I am pretty direct and blunt with my positions. If you can't properly address my arguments, then don't bother posting a reply.

I'll post in whichever thread I feel like posting, thanks.  

Especially when you can't do so without contradicting yourself against the very principles of my arguments.

Not sure where this occurred but I'm all ears.

[Iconodule]

Your face is a logical fallacy.

Ok, let's keep the self-contradictions going? Seriously though, is that behavior even necessary?

Your face is a self-contradiction.

[TheJackel]

Wow, look at this thread spiral down the social dogma rabbit whole.. Way to show some intellectual integrity o.O 

[Iconodule]

Wow, look at this thread spiral down the social dogma rabbit whole.. Way to show some intellectual integrity fellas..

Your face is a social dogma rabbit hole.

Such comments about a person's face are attacks on the person and not on his arguments, which is the definition of ad hominem. Not only that, but your insults are also quite juvenile and rude. One should hope to expect better from you than this. Therefore, you are receiving this warning to last for the next 40 days, since this is not the first time you've been so rude to other posters.

If you think this warning in error, please feel free to appeal it to Fr. George.

- PeterTheAleut

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: The Logical Fallacies of Religion.