What If There Is a God?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The logical point I'm getting at is the Proclamation of the Premise. Argue all you want to support your premise. But when you draw conclusions based on your premise and then proclaim the conclusions are verified because they logically follow, that is illogical. They are not verified. When you claim they are you are merely proclaiming your premise. PLEASE think about this. Do you understand that logical point? Please somebody tell me they are actually paying attention.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this branch of logic you're introducing me to no one could ever logically disagree with you because if they walk into the room not believing what you believe ( even perhaps because they never heard of the concept) and you make your pitch, trying to logically justify it, they aren't allowed to say "your reasoning for belief does not make sense." since you can counter with, "well, you came in here not believing in my position so you are merely proclaiming your premise."

Does that really work? I'll have to remember it when my wife doesn't buy my (previously considered goofy) reasons for something.

"Do you believe the martians are going to land tomorrow?"
"No, why should I?"
" Here are my reasons ... blather..."
" That doesn't make any sense, but I still love you."
" You're just proclaiming your premise."

I dunno, she seems to with-it for that to work, but I'll report back.

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Does that really work? I'll have to remember it when my wife doesn't buy my (previously considered goofy) reasons for something.

"Do you believe the martians are going to land tomorrow?"
"No, why should I?"
" Here are my reasons ... blather..."
" That doesn't make any sense, but I still love you."
" You're just proclaiming your premise."

I dunno, she seems to with-it for that to work, but I'll report back.

luckyme


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, tried it. Need help.
She countered with, "you don't expect me to prove the martians AREN'T coming, do you."
I explained that's it's a new branch of logic and apparently she'll have to or I'm right. She's still laughing. gonna be a long lonely night ... give me something here, you started this.

luckyme

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The logical point I'm getting at is the Proclamation of the Premise. Argue all you want to support your premise. But when you draw conclusions based on your premise and then proclaim the conclusions are verified because they logically follow, that is illogical. They are not verified. When you claim they are you are merely proclaiming your premise. PLEASE think about this. Do you understand that logical point? Please somebody tell me they are actually paying attention.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm listening and this certainly seems uncontroversial. What I would dispute is that atheists base their attacks on the premise "God doesnt exist". I think they base it more on things like: "The world makes sense. Bizarre looking events usually have mundane explanations. People who make claims with no objective evidence are usually mistaken." etc etc

As Phil153 pointed out - theists also believe these, so they are not controversial premises.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although now I'm starting to see people argue that Believing in God is silly even if there is a God.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a clarity of thought issue.

My neighbor believes Carrot Top is alive because my neighbors lawn is cut every day. Seems silly to me. If you feel Carrot Tops existence proves my neighbor right ... oh, well.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

You can make the argument with them that the assumed God that exists has nothing to do with what they think is their experience with him. In fact that's exactly the kind of argument I'm encouraging with my, "What If God Exists" OP. If you can make that case it is a much stronger case than to simply keep proclaiming the unknowable assertion that God doesn't exist to begin with. And I think it's exactly the kind of argument that Needs to be made if we are to get past these divisive peculiar tenets of various religions.

The thing is, it's not necessarily a condemnation of Religion itself, if we understand the term in a more general way. The Best application of the argument, in my opinion, could lead to common ground not only between religious sects but with the atheist community as well.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Every week, christians meet and get a small lecture on good, moral behaviour. Even if some of that teaching is off, the overall message is positive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that there's something better going on than that. Lectures on moral behavior is ok, but the trouble is some of those morals include things like, "do not be gay" etc. In my view the highest value is in what it teaches us about the Attitude we should have toward each other. There's common ground there between the Secular and Religious. The Secular can call it "attitude" and the Religous, "spirit". If we learn the general attitudes or spirit of compassion, tolerance, empathy, forgiveness, charity etc. toward each other then we can figure out the appropriate behaviors ourselves most of the time. In fact, specifying too many of those behaviors is what gets to be the problem so often with religions.

PairTheBoard

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
You can make the argument with them that the assumed God that exists has nothing to do with what they think is their experience with him.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've made exactly this argument in the past, and it's rejected. People want to believe in a God that loves them, that has a father-like quality, that intervenes in the world and makes them important and non-random, that sends the Bad People to hell and people like them to heaven, that created the Earth as a special place for his special children and watches over them. That's the whole point of religion, and people strongly object to any notion that their experience or understanding of God and truth may be flawed.

[ QUOTE ]
The Best application of the argument, in my opinion, could lead to common ground not only between religious sects but with the atheist community as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a howler, considering that even intelligent men like yourself swallow religious stories whole. What common ground is there to be had with people who believe that a Jew walked on water 2000 years ago, was born of a virgin, and rose from the dead? As easy to convince the Scientologists that Xenu doesn't exist or that Muhammed was just some Arab dude who gained a following

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
In this branch of logic you're introducing me to no one could ever logically disagree with you

[/ QUOTE ]

You still don't get it.

Suppose we know statement (1) is valid. Do you think the following is logical?

(1) If P then C
(2) Therefore C

Do you really think that admitting the illogic of that train means you can never disagree with anybody? How do you get that impression? Have you been taking crazy pills?

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
"Do you believe the martians are going to land tomorrow?"
"No, why should I?"
" Here are my reasons ... blather..."
" That doesn't make any sense, but I still love you."
" You're just proclaiming your premise."


[/ QUOTE ]

She's right. You are not communicating with her. Of course you don't have to believe her and you don't have to try to convince her of anything. But if you want to communicate and convince her she's wrong you're going to have to do better than just saying, "That doesn't make any sense". You're going to have to tell her Why it doesn't make any sense. And you're going to have to keep giving her reasons until you convince her, if that's possible. But she's right. Just telling her she isn't making any sense is not an argument. You are just proclaiming your premise. You have a right to believe your premise, but don't expect her to just take your word for it.

PairTheBoard

[oe39]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how would they make any progress?

[/ QUOTE ]

By continuing to discuss the premise. It gets even worse when the Proclamation of the Premise results in circular logic.

The Proclamation of the Premise goes like this.

Premise ==> Conclusion
Therefore, Conclusion.

It gets worse when it goes like this,

Premise ==> Conclusion ==> Premise
Therefore, Premise

For example:

Premise = "There is no God"
Conclusion = "Believing in God is silly"

Although now I'm starting to see people argue that Believing in God is silly even if there is a God.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

what i mean is, when you say this:
[ QUOTE ]

Suppose there is a God and we have been searching for ways to understand him through history in our various religions?

[/ QUOTE ]
i don't see a mechanism for progress in understanding. what is it?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm listening and this certainly seems uncontroversial.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.

[ QUOTE ]
I think they base it more on things like: "The world makes sense. Bizarre looking events usually have mundane explanations. People who make claims with no objective evidence are usually mistaken." etc etc

As Phil153 pointed out - theists also believe these, so they are not controversial premises.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, these are the best kinds of arguments. vhawk and I had some great discusions where he stuck to arguments like that. I think that allowed us to reach the focus that let us see the real point of contention where we finally had to just agree to disagree. Once that point is reached it can be easily revisted in discussions that might make further progress.

[ QUOTE ]
What I would dispute is that atheists base their attacks on the premise "God doesnt exist".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not always the premise they proclaim. I see this proclamation of the premise going on quite a bit in other threads. And I have a hard time seeing how it isn't really at the heart of the most controversial attacks being made on the general principle of Religion itself. Maybe I'm proclaming a premise, but if there is a God I have a hard time understanding the argument that claims to know there's no way we can be in touch with it other than scientific investigation. Proclamation, "If there is a God there's no way praying to him is meaningful. If there is a God, his presence is beyond our meditation." I guess I'm like luckyme listening to his wife tell him about the martians. It just doesn't make sense to me. How can they claim to know that?

PairTheBoard