Praying

[Fictional]

I've been an atheist all my life, though I'm really interested in religions (from the point of view of studying them). I've never really felt at ease with Christianity, but there's quite a large part of me that would like to be a Christian (some of the kindest, most genuinely nice people I know are Church of England christian) if I could only get my head around the whole God thing... I just can't believe in God Which brings me to my main point... Sporadicly throughout the last couple of years (starting mainly with my quitting S.H.) and getting more and more frequent recently, I find myself praying. Like, when I was in History yesterday, we were watching a video about WW2 and I found myself praying that I'd never have to live through a war. And when I found out that my Grandma's ill, my immediate reaction was "please God let her be ok." I've tried going to church, and I always feel really out of place there - and bored I guess I've just been wondering if anyone else has done this, or if I'm just kinda odd O.o

[Xujhan]

You'd like to believe something you know/believe to be false? I don't mean to be snide; I honestly can't get my head around that. I think it's far better to accept the universe as it presents itself to us than to resign ourselves to a comforting fantasy. I can't imagine wanting to have religious belief.

[Sythan]

Study all kinds of different religions. Buddhism, Pagan religions, Wicca, Bahai, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of religions out in the world. Study and perhaps you will find what you are looking for.

Never take others beliefs as your own, find your own truth.

[Socratica]

The reason you can't believe in God is probably that you have never been presented with rational arguments supporting His existence.
First of all, where does all matter come from? The Big Bang, you may say. But then what caused the Big Bang? I don't suppose it was something controlled by laws of physics, because there were no laws of physics before the beginning of matter. If God doesn't exist, then matter must have become from completely nothing. Is that logical? Therefore there has to be a "prime cause" of everything. A cause that doesn't require other causes to exist. A cause that is absolute.
Second of all, have you ever noticed that logic is eternal (meaning that it has always existed and always will)? This cannot be denied, for logic couldn't have ever not existed. The statement "Logic does not exist." is paradoxical, because existence is a term of logic. Since I have prooved that logic is eternal, then it must also be absolute. Otherwise it would not have the right to be eternal. Therefore Logic is God, a necessary being.
I hope my arguments were convincing.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Socratica

First of all, where does all matter come from?

No one knows, and neither do you.

Originally Posted by Socratica

The Big Bang, you may say. But then what caused the Big Bang?

Again, no one knows, and neither do you.

Originally Posted by Socratica

I don't suppose it was something controlled by laws of physics, because there were no laws of physics before the beginning of matter.

There is no evidence to support either part of this claim.

Originally Posted by Socratica

If God doesn't exist, then matter must have become from completely nothing. Is that logical?

You are incorrect. There are several possibilities that do not require god. Others are: matter has always existed, times curves back on itself, or matter came from something that exists but is not matter.

Originally Posted by Socratica

Therefore there has to be a "prime cause" of everything. A cause that doesn't require other causes to exist. A cause that is absolute.

This fails a trivial infinite regress test. What caused the absolute cause? If something, then it is not an absolute cause. If nothing, then not all things need causes. Either way, you have claimed a contradiction. The cosmological argument - the name for your argument - is very old and very well refuted. A simple google search would have enlightened you.

Originally Posted by Socratica

Second of all, have you ever noticed that logic is eternal (meaning that it has always existed and always will)?

This is false. Logic exists as a consequence of ordered thought. It is a function applied to true and false statements. The potential for logic given a sentient mind is constant in our universe, but this is not the same thing. The same is true of other things, such as mathematics. The universe does not deal in true and false, it deals merely in 'is' and 'is not'. There is also no reason to think that our conventional conception of logic would hold true outside our universe.

Originally Posted by Socratica

This cannot be denied, for logic couldn't have ever not existed.

The potential for logic and the existence of logic are not the same thing. In any event, there are many things that have existed since the beginning of our universe in a much more real sense, such as gravity. Unless you also claim that gravity proves the existence of god, there is no reason to think that logic does.

Originally Posted by Socratica

The statement "Logic does not exist." is paradoxical, because existence is a term of logic.

"I do not exist" is also a paradoxical statement; that does not prove that I am eternal. All it shows is that the ability to make a statement requires existence, which is a rather trivial result.

Originally Posted by Socratica

Since I have prooved that logic is eternal, then it must also be absolute. Otherwise it would not have the right to be eternal.

Rights are a human concept; it does not follow that something that is eternal must be absolute. You also failed to define what you mean by absolute, so you have no point in any event.

Originally Posted by Socratica

Therefore Logic is God, a necessary being.

Logic is not a being; it is a function. Even if your above argument were convincing, all you would have demonstrated is that something is eternal. You have not shown that it is necessary, or that it is a being, or that it is god. These are not synonyms.

Originally Posted by Socratica

I hope my arguments were convincing.

They were not. These arguments are commonly refuted in first-year philosophy courses.

[Socratica]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

You are incorrect. There are several possibilities that do not require god. Others are: matter has always existed, times curves back on itself, or matter came from something that exists but is not matter.

Even if matter has always existed and time curves back on itself, there has to be an absolute law controlling this. Otherwise, matter itself would be absolute. Besides, ancient Greeks also thought that matter has always existed, yet with that assumption Socrates managed to conclude that the Absolute (God) exists.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

This fails a trivial infinite regress test. What caused the absolute cause? If something, then it is not an absolute cause. If nothing, then not all things need causes. Either way, you have claimed a contradiction. The cosmological argument - the name for your argument - is very old and very well refuted. A simple google search would have enlightened you.

Let me put it this way. God is the only cause that doesn’t need another cause because He is absolute. Everything else needs a cause to exist.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Logic exists as a consequence of ordered thought.

In that case, what controlled all laws of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics etc. before rational beings had been developed?

Originally Posted by Xujhan

"I do not exist" is also a paradoxical statement; that does not prove that I am eternal. All it shows is that the ability to make a statement requires existence, which is a rather trivial result.

But if I say “Fletcher does not exist”, the statement is not paradoxical (it’s just false). However the statement “Logic does not exist” is paradoxical in everybody’s lips. You do not understand why I formed such a statement. If logic isn’t eternal, that means there had to be a circumstance in which it didn’t exist. The statement “Logic does not exist” being paradoxical shows that it is impossible for logic to have ever not existed. The paradox of the statement “Logic does not exist” doesn’t come from the fact that the maker of the statement claims himself/herself/itself to not exist, because in this case the maker is not the subject of the sentence. The problem with the statement “Logic does not exist” is that “not existing” requires the existence of logic.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

You also failed to define what you mean by absolute, so you have no point in any event.

What I mean by absolute is being able to exist without being dependent on anything else.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Logic is not a being; it is a function. Even if your above argument were convincing, all you would have demonstrated is that something is eternal. You have not shown that it is necessary, or that it is a being, or that it is god. These are not synonyms.

The definition of a being is that which exists. Logic as a set of laws can exist, even though they’re abstract.
Logic is not only necessary for something to exist, but also for something to not exist. Therefore logic is not only present where/when matter is, but also where/when it isn’t (beyond time and space). That means that apart from being eternal, logic is also omnipresent (another feature of God). Logic determines what the reality is (what is the objective truth), so it is almighty. It “considers” every single detail of reality, so it is all knowing. All those features put together make logic absolute.

[Socratica]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Logic is not a being; it is a function.

A being is that which exists. If logic is not a being, it does not exist, which means it's fictional. Is that what you're suggesting?

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Socratica

Even if matter has always existed and time curves back on itself, there has to be an absolute law controlling this. Otherwise, matter itself would be absolute.

You haven't shown that matter cannot be 'absolute', so in any event this doesn't support your claim. There is also no evidence to support the necessity of an absolute law, nor what the nature of such a law would be were it to exist.

Originally Posted by Socratica

Besides, ancient Greeks also thought that matter has always existed, yet with that assumption Socrates managed to conclude that the Absolute (God) exists.

Incidentally, Socrates also thought that humans had an immortal soul that existed in a realm of definitions and attained perfect knowledge, and that the soul was imparted into the body at birth, and that anything we learn is in fact recollection of this earlier time. Just because he was a fancy Greek philosopher doesn't mean that all his ideas were sensible.

Originally Posted by Socratica

Let me put it this way. God is the only cause that doesn’t need another cause because He is absolute. Everything else needs a cause to exist.

You just made three circular claims without evidence for either of them. Why is god able to exist without cause? Why do all other things necessarily need a cause? All you've done is defined god as that which needs no cause; that doesn't demonstrate that such a thing actually exists.

Originally Posted by Socratica

In that case, what controlled all laws of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics etc. before rational beings had been developed?

There is no good reason to think that such laws are controlled at all. Like the universe itself, it is easily possible that such things simply are. Not all things need to be controlled; otherwise, what controls that which controls those? Another infinite regress.

Originally Posted by Socratica

But if I say “Fletcher does not exist”, the statement is not paradoxical (it’s just false). However the statement “Logic does not exist” is paradoxical in everybody’s lips. You do not understand why I formed such a statement. If logic isn’t eternal, that means there had to be a circumstance in which it didn’t exist. The statement “Logic does not exist” being paradoxical shows that it is impossible for logic to have ever not existed. The paradox of the statement “Logic does not exist” doesn’t come from the fact that the maker of the statement claims himself/herself/itself to not exist, because in this case the maker is not the subject of the sentence. The problem with the statement “Logic does not exist” is that “not existing” requires the existence of logic.

"I do not exist," is a paradoxical statement regardless of perspective. Anything that might utter it necessarily exists.

I do understand your arguement; it's a fairly common one. It's simply wrong. The only thing nonexistence requires is nonexistence. Your statement being paradoxical doesn't demonstrate that logic always exists; only that logic exists anywhere where such a statement could be made. We have no reason to assume that this is true of all reality.

Originally Posted by Socratica

What I mean by absolute is being able to exist without being dependent on anything else.

And why can this not be true of matter, mathematics, time, or Glenn Beck?

Originally Posted by Socratica

A being is that which exists. If logic is not a being, it does not exist, which means it's fictional. Is that what you're suggesting?

'A being' is a consciousness or living entity. If all you mean to say is that logic exists, then say as much. It would be more correct, though still a stretch to say that "logic has being", and that is a much less impressive claim.

Originally Posted by Socratica

The definition of a being is that which exists. Logic as a set of laws can exist, even though they’re abstract.

Out of curiosity: please give a definition of logic. I have a feeling that it does not mean what you think it means.

Originally Posted by Socratica

Logic is not only necessary for something to exist, but also for something to not exist. Therefore logic is not only present where/when matter is, but also where/when it isn’t (beyond time and space).

Go beyond time and space, collect evidence, and get back to us with your results. This is the primary flaw of your entire argument: you're making grandiose claims about the nature of existence with no more evidence than what you can think of. Pythagoras would be proud, I'm sure, but the approach is hilariously arrogant. There's no reason to think that merely thinking is enough to unlock the mysteries of the universe, particuarly when humans have such a miserable track record at intuiting the truth. All you can do is define various things then compare definitions to see which are contradictory and which are not. It's great fun as a parlour game, but it doesn't demonstrate that such things actually exist. Mere consistency of an idea isn't any guarantee of its truth.

Originally Posted by Socratica

That means that apart from being eternal, logic is also omnipresent (another feature of God). Logic determines what the reality is (what is the objective truth), so it is almighty. It “considers” every single detail of reality, so it is all knowing. All those features put together make logic absolute.

This is very poetic, but meaningless. The definitions you're using for omnipresense, omniscience and omnopotence are not the same as you'd need to even define a meaningful god, let alone demonstrate that one actually exists. Again, you're just drawing up a bunch of arbitrary definitions, mushing them together, and claiming that the result equals god without presenting a shred of evidence. The arguement isn't even coherent, let alone convincing. Any power it has relies entirely on impressing the reader with big ideas and flowery language. Here, let me try one:

Art is that which is beautiful. The universe is the most beautiful work of art in existence. Thus the universe is the best work of art in existence. All artwork comes from an artist, so God must have existed to create the universe. Fantastic, god exists!

Even better, the impressiveness of a piece of artwork is directly proportional to the difficulty posed to the artist. Since the artist of the universe is god and the universe is the best work of art, god must have overcome the biggest difficulty. The biggest possible difficulty is nonexistence, therefore god must not exist.

Wait, shit. I guess the atheists are right after all.

[Fictional]

My brain's too sleepy to follow you guys argument right now... but to answer your first question, Xujhan, yes I would. I don't know what your experiences with Christianity are, but where I live, it's about hope and friendliness and being a good person, and I'd like to be able to commit myself to that. I know one can be a good person without believing in God, it's not that part that troubles me. I guess because my Grandma's so ill, I'd really like to believe that there is a better place that if she does die, she can go to. As rational and logical as atheism is (and if I'd been raised christian, I think I'd probably still be an atheist now) it doesn't offer one that hope.


Also, people can argue all they want about proof of the existance of God - I can't remember the exact wording he used, but Douglas Adams explained in one of his books how as soon as one proves God's existance, God ceases to exist. I know it's not exactly relevant, but I thought I'd put it out there =)

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Originally Posted by Fictional

My brain's too sleepy to follow you guys argument right now... but to answer your first question, Xujhan, yes I would. I don't know what your experiences with Christianity are, but where I live, it's about hope and friendliness and being a good person, and I'd like to be able to commit myself to that. I know one can be a good person without believing in God, it's not that part that troubles me. I guess because my Grandma's so ill, I'd really like to believe that there is a better place that if she does die, she can go to. As rational and logical as atheism is (and if I'd been raised christian, I think I'd probably still be an atheist now) it doesn't offer one that hope.


Also, people can argue all they want about proof of the existance of God - I can't remember the exact wording he used, but Douglas Adams explained in one of his books how as soon as one proves God's existance, God ceases to exist. I know it's not exactly relevant, but I thought I'd put it out there =)

Hope is relative. You don't need hope to be happy, you merely require acceptance, or your own combination of values that results in your being content.
And if your grandmother is so ill, would an end to the pain be better even without a continuation than perpetual suffering?

[Fictional]

Yeah, it'd just be nice to think that there is a Heaven for her... if there is, she'll get in anyway - she's Catholic xD

[Xujhan]

Sorry to have hijacked your thread a bit. Nothing grates on my nerves like an empty argument that pretends to be all deep and philosophical.

Originally Posted by Fictional

My brain's too sleepy to follow you guys argument right now... but to answer your first question, Xujhan, yes I would. I don't know what your experiences with Christianity are, but where I live, it's about hope and friendliness and being a good person, and I'd like to be able to commit myself to that.

You absolutely can commit yourself to those things; they're all wonderful ideals. But as you say, Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on them. The way I see it, the only unique thing Christianity has to offer is Christ himself, and I wouldn't want that. The idea that our faults and responsibilities can be paid for by blood sacrifice is beyond abhorrent to me. Even were the myths true, I wouldn't want to accept the offer of 'salvation'.

Originally Posted by Fictional

I know one can be a good person without believing in God, it's not that part that troubles me. I guess because my Grandma's so ill, I'd really like to believe that there is a better place that if she does die, she can go to. As rational and logical as atheism is (and if I'd been raised christian, I think I'd probably still be an atheist now) it doesn't offer one that hope.

It doesn't, but I think it's not such a great hope. It's always sad when someone we love dies, but that sadness is utterly insignificant compared to the happiness that came from them having been alive. Like any work of art a person is always much more than the sum of their parts, and what is lost when they die is not as great as what they leave behind. If heaven exists, then everything before death is but a shadow. I think it's far better to accept death, but to see it as a chance to rejoice for the life that it punctuates.

And until then, bake her some cookies and tell her how much you love her.

Originally Posted by Fictional

Also, people can argue all they want about proof of the existance of God - I can't remember the exact wording he used, but Douglas Adams explained in one of his books how as soon as one proves God's existance, God ceases to exist. I know it's not exactly relevant, but I thought I'd put it out there =)

"I refuse to prove I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing.

"Ah, but," says Man, "the biblefish is a dead giveaway. It prooves you exist and so therefore you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, who promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Well, that was easy," says Man, who goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed at the next zebra crossing.

[Socratica]

Sorry, I didn’t have time to reply earlier.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

You haven't shown that matter cannot be 'absolute', so in any event this doesn't support your claim. There is also no evidence to support the necessity of an absolute law, nor what the nature of such a law would be were it to exist.

Matter is not absolute for it does not possess all the virtues of the Absolute. Even if it is eternal, it is not omnipresent, almighty, all knowing, transcendent and immanent. Matter is ruled by laws of science. According to the pulsating universe theory, matter “shrinks” and is “born” again. Laws of science would have to “shrink” and be “born” again along with matter because they apply only to matter. Therefore laws of science cannot be absolute either. In that case what law is in charge of the pulsating? If there isn’t such a law, then why does the pulsating continue?

Originally Posted by Xujhan

You just made three circular claims without evidence for either of them. Why is god able to exist without cause? Why do all other things necessarily need a cause? All you've done is defined god as that which needs no cause; that doesn't demonstrate that such a thing actually exists.

All I wanted to demonstrate in this particular paragraph is that it is possible for the something (like the Absolute) not to have a cause. How about this explanation: God is infinite and that compensates for the lack of the infinite “queue” of causes.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

There is no good reason to think that such laws are controlled at all. Like the universe itself, it is easily possible that such things simply are. Not all things need to be controlled; otherwise, what controls that which controls those? Another infinite regress.

What makes laws of science consistent and not contradictory? What makes sure that gravity does not pull us towards the planet one day and repel us the next day? What makes 2+2 always equal 4? Isn’t that logic?
As for infinite regress, how has it been proved? Has any scientist ever discovered an actual infinite “queue” of causes? You see, this is an example of your inconsistence. First, you demand physical evidence for absolutely everything and then you believe in something that hasn’t been scientifically proved.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I do understand your arguement; it's a fairly common one. It's simply wrong. The only thing nonexistence requires is nonexistence. .

Nonexistence requires the law of the excluded middle (a law of logic). Therefore nonexistence requires the existence of logic.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Your statement being paradoxical doesn't demonstrate that logic always exists; only that logic exists anywhere where such a statement could be made. We have no reason to assume that this is true of all reality.

Are you suggesting that there may be a different type of logic in another point of reality? Logic has to apply to the whole reality, otherwise reality would be completely undefined, perhaps with some things both existing and not existing. That would make our debate on the existence of God pointless, for then He could both exist and not exist and we’d both be right.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Out of curiosity: please give a definition of logic. I have a feeling that it does not mean what you think it means.

I understand logic as a set of principles, including the Principle of Contradiction, the Law of the Excluded Middle and the Law of Identity. Previously, you said that logic refers to statements. But then statements refer to reality, so logic refers to reality.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Go beyond time and space, collect evidence, and get back to us with your results. This is the primary flaw of your entire argument: you're making grandiose claims about the nature of existence with no more evidence than what you can think of. Pythagoras would be proud, I'm sure, but the approach is hilariously arrogant. There's no reason to think that merely thinking is enough to unlock the mysteries of the universe, particuarly when humans have such a miserable track record at intuiting the truth. All you can do is define various things then compare definitions to see which are contradictory and which are not. It's great fun as a parlour game, but it doesn't demonstrate that such things actually exist. Mere consistency of an idea isn't any guarantee of its truth.

You’re so trustful towards physical evidence. However I’d like you to tell me how can you be sure that your senses don’t deceive you? How can you be sure that the universe isn’t an illusion? All you can be completely sure of is the existence of your own wit and God’s. Why God’s? Because if you look at a table, close your eyes and open them again, the table is still there, so there has to be another wit keeping the illusion of the table in place. Of course I do not believe that the universe is an illusion because if God is almighty, why would He keep the universe an illusion and not bring it to life? However how can you, an atheist support the theses that the universe is not an illusion? If you can’t, then all scientific evidence is worthless to you. Then you can only depend on your wit.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

This is very poetic, but meaningless. The definitions you're using for omnipresense, omniscience and omnopotence are not the same as you'd need to even define a meaningful god, let alone demonstrate that one actually exists. Again, you're just drawing up a bunch of arbitrary definitions, mushing them together, and claiming that the result equals god without presenting a shred of evidence. The arguement isn't even coherent, let alone convincing. Any power it has relies entirely on impressing the reader with big ideas and flowery language. Here, let me try one:

Art is that which is beautiful. The universe is the most beautiful work of art in existence. Thus the universe is the best work of art in existence. All artwork comes from an artist, so God must have existed to create the universe. Fantastic, god exists!

Even better, the impressiveness of a piece of artwork is directly proportional to the difficulty posed to the artist. Since the artist of the universe is god and the universe is the best work of art, god must have overcome the biggest difficulty. The biggest possible difficulty is nonexistence, therefore god must not exist.

Wait, shit. I guess the atheists are right after all.

I’d like you to tell me exactly what part of my reasoning didn’t make sense to you. I am not trying to bribe you with flowery language. I really do care about finding the truth and so far I consider my reasoning consistent.

[Socratica]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

All you can do is define various things then compare definitions to see which are contradictory and which are not.

Definitions have a lot to do with identity as long as they are strict enough.

[Socratica]

Originally Posted by Fictional

My brain's too sleepy to follow you guys argument right now... but to answer your first question, Xujhan, yes I would. I don't know what your experiences with Christianity are, but where I live, it's about hope and friendliness and being a good person, and I'd like to be able to commit myself to that. I know one can be a good person without believing in God, it's not that part that troubles me. I guess because my Grandma's so ill, I'd really like to believe that there is a better place that if she does die, she can go to. As rational and logical as atheism is (and if I'd been raised christian, I think I'd probably still be an atheist now) it doesn't offer one that hope.


Also, people can argue all they want about proof of the existance of God - I can't remember the exact wording he used, but Douglas Adams explained in one of his books how as soon as one proves God's existance, God ceases to exist. I know it's not exactly relevant, but I thought I'd put it out there =)

If you care about findind the truth, I suggest you do try to follow our discussion. The question on God's existence is sort of like a math problem. There is only one answer. You can either get the wrong answer by making a mistake in your "calculations" (reasoning) or get the right answer by making no mistakes. What you're trying to do is choose the answer you like most without reasoning.
As for Douglas Adams' theory, it doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Socratica

Matter is not absolute for it does not possess all the virtues of the Absolute. Even if it is eternal, it is not omnipresent, almighty, all knowing, transcendent and immanent. Matter is ruled by laws of science. According to the pulsating universe theory, matter “shrinks” and is “born” again. Laws of science would have to “shrink” and be “born” again along with matter because they apply only to matter. Therefore laws of science cannot be absolute either. In that case what law is in charge of the pulsating? If there isn’t such a law, then why does the pulsating continue?

If those are your grounds for calling something 'absolute', then why do you assume that anything is? At least two of those qualities - omnipotence and omniscience - require sentient being. Even if all your previous arguments are accepted as gospel, all you've demonstrated is that logic is eternal; it's a gigantic leap of absurdity to get from that to 'Logic is sentient and also god'.

Originally Posted by Socratica

All I wanted to demonstrate in this particular paragraph is that it is possible for the something (like the Absolute) not to have a cause. How about this explanation: God is infinite and that compensates for the lack of the infinite “queue” of causes.

It is able to, sure. That doesn't say anything about whether it actually is. The cases that doesn't require any god are also possible, and you still haven't presented any reason to take your arguments seriously.

Originally Posted by Socratica

What makes laws of science consistent and not contradictory? What makes sure that gravity does not pull us towards the planet one day and repel us the next day? What makes 2+2 always equal 4? Isn’t that logic?

No, it is not. Logic is a framework by which to investigate these laws, not a mechanical process which drives them.

Originally Posted by Socratica

As for infinite regress, how has it been proved? Has any scientist ever discovered an actual infinite “queue” of causes? You see, this is an example of your inconsistence. First, you demand physical evidence for absolutely everything and then you believe in something that hasn’t been scientifically proved.

This is utterly incoherent. You're claiming that such a thing is impossible as evidence for your god. Burden of evidence is squarely on you. Acknowledging a possibility is not the same thing as believing; a distinction you would do well to learn.

Originally Posted by Socratica

Nonexistence requires the law of the excluded middle (a law of logic). Therefore nonexistence requires the existence of logic.

Nonexistence requires nonexistence. This is not a difficult concept. The law of excluded middle is an axiom about the truth of statements, not the existence of objects. You have a very badly warped notion of requirement and causality. That we can say that there are four rocks requires mathematics, but the rocks themselves do not depend on mathematics for their existence. Math, like logic, is just as easily an emerent property of our universe as anything else. There is no reason to accept your particular interpretation over others. The difference is that your arguments rests on these flimsy ideas alone; most others actually attempt to engage reality.

Originally Posted by Socratica

Are you suggesting that there may be a different type of logic in another point of reality? Logic has to apply to the whole reality, otherwise reality would be completely undefined, perhaps with some things both existing and not existing. That would make our debate on the existence of God pointless, for then He could both exist and not exist and we’d both be right.

Given that we know exactly nothing about what is outside our universe, I see no reason to rule out anything. Perhaps there are strange universes in which, by our standards, things would both exist and not.

Originally Posted by Socratica

I understand logic as a set of principles, including the Principle of Contradiction, the Law of the Excluded Middle and the Law of Identity. Previously, you said that logic refers to statements. But then statements refer to reality, so logic refers to reality.

Refers to, yes. Describes, yes. Defines, no. Causes, no.

Originally Posted by Socratica

You’re so trustful towards physical evidence. However I’d like you to tell me how can you be sure that your senses don’t deceive you? How can you be sure that the universe isn’t an illusion? All you can be completely sure of is the existence of your own wit and God’s. Why God’s? Because if you look at a table, close your eyes and open them again, the table is still there, so there has to be another wit keeping the illusion of the table in place. Of course I do not believe that the universe is an illusion because if God is almighty, why would He keep the universe an illusion and not bring it to life? However how can you, an atheist support the theses that the universe is not an illusion? If you can’t, then all scientific evidence is worthless to you. Then you can only depend on your wit.

Yes, I've read Descartes too. It was an awful argument when he wrote it and time has not been kind to it since then. I'm not sure that my senses don't decieve me, and neither are you. I don't need to be sure. Insistence on 100% certainty is arbitrary and childish. Scientific evidence is valuable because it contributes to forming theories with predictive power that increase our ability to deal with reality. Stubborn armchair philosophy accomplishes rather less. The universe may well be an illusion, but until we have reason to think that it is we gain nothing by allowing that to impede our investigation of reality. That the existence of the universe is not contingent upon our consciousness demonstrates nothing, and certainly nothing so grandiose as a god. If you're really that impressed by Descartes, I'd advise you to keep reading, and to branch beyond the authors that conveniently agree with your preferences.

Originally Posted by Socratica

I’d like you to tell me exactly what part of my reasoning didn’t make sense to you. I am not trying to bribe you with flowery language. I really do care about finding the truth and so far I consider my reasoning consistent.

Consistency doesn't guarantee correctness. "All cats are blue. All mammals are cats. Therefore all mammals are blue," is a completely consistent argument. The glaring flaws in your arguments are in the premises, not the conclusions.

Originally Posted by Socratica

Definitions have a lot to do with identity as long as they are strict enough.

I define god to be that which does not exist. Therefore, god does not exist. That is, in essense, exactly the same form as your argument but with the flowery crap cut out. I might just as well define Socratica out of existence while I'm at it. Without actual evidence to back up your definitions you have no meaningful argument.

Originally Posted by Socratica

If you care about findind the truth, I suggest you do try to follow our discussion. The question on God's existence is sort of like a math problem. There is only one answer. You can either get the wrong answer by making a mistake in your "calculations" (reasoning) or get the right answer by making no mistakes. What you're trying to do is choose the answer you like most without reasoning.

Funny; you appear to be doing exactly the same thing. But if you think that purely deductive reasoning is so powerful: what colour am I thinking of? There is only one answer. You can either get the wrong answer by making a mistake in your "calculations" (reasoning) or get the right answer by making no mistakes.

Or do you suddenly find yourself lacking evidence?

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

I'm only going to respond to a few items from your post.

Originally Posted by Socratica

Matter is not absolute for it does not possess all the virtues of the Absolute. Even if it is eternal, it is not omnipresent, almighty, all knowing, transcendent and immanent. Matter is ruled by laws of science. According to the pulsating universe theory, matter “shrinks” and is “born” again. Laws of science would have to “shrink” and be “born” again along with matter because they apply only to matter. Therefore laws of science cannot be absolute either. In that case what law is in charge of the pulsating? If there isn’t such a law, then why does the pulsating continue?

This argument is moot because your premise of the pulsating universe theory has been scientifically rejected. The problem is entropy, more specifically, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated. This is avoided by including dark energy, however, this leads to further complications and mentioning these will tangent the argument.

Originally Posted by Socratica

What makes laws of science consistent and not contradictory? What makes sure that gravity does not pull us towards the planet one day and repel us the next day? What makes 2+2 always equal 4? Isn’t that logic?
As for infinite regress, how has it been proved? Has any scientist ever discovered an actual infinite “queue” of causes? You see, this is an example of your inconsistence. First, you demand physical evidence for absolutely everything and then you believe in something that hasn’t been scientifically proved.

"Scientifically proved" is a contradictory phrase because science requires falsifiability, thus something cannot be completely proven. However, the bigger issue is you seem to have a different idea of what logic. As an analogy, I always thought logic was akin to examining the architecture blue-print of a building as opposed to being a worker who builds it.

Originally Posted by Socratica

Nonexistence requires the law of the excluded middle (a law of logic). Therefore nonexistence requires the existence of logic.

I'm confused by your statement because non-existence needs non-existence. I don't understand how non-existence needs existence.

Originally Posted by Socratica

You’re so trustful towards physical evidence. However I’d like you to tell me how can you be sure that your senses don’t deceive you?

Nobody can be sure their senses don't deceive them, including you.

Originally Posted by Socratica

Because if you look at a table, close your eyes and open them again, the table is still there, so there has to be another wit keeping the illusion of the table in place.

If the table is an illusion, it implies ones senses and internal logic cannot be trusted. However, you've assumed the table is an illusion without explaining why and how.

Originally Posted by Socratica

Of course I do not believe that the universe is an illusion because if God is almighty, why would He keep the universe an illusion and not bring it to life?

I'm having trouble here for two reasons. First, in your analogy, you assumed the table was an illusion but here your argument involves the universe not being an illusion. Second, you support your logical view by questioning something that is non-logical and again, assume it would follow common-sense and logic. Overall, it's a set of assumptions you've posed without any rationale or evidence for them.

Originally Posted by Socratica

However how can you, an atheist support the theses that the universe is not an illusion? If you can’t, then all scientific evidence is worthless to you. Then you can only depend on your wit.

This goes back to making unfounded assumptions as an argument.

[Socratica]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

If those are your grounds for calling something 'absolute', then why do you assume that anything is? At least two of those qualities - omnipotence and omniscience - require sentient being. Even if all your previous arguments are accepted as gospel, all you've demonstrated is that logic is eternal; it's a gigantic leap of absurdity to get from that to 'Logic is sentient and also god'.

Indeed, my attempt to prove that logic is omnipotent and all knowing may be doubtful. However this proof might not be necessary to demonstrate that logic is the Absolute. If logic rules the whole reality and there is nothing more than reality, then logic rules everything there is. Since everything there is is ruled by logic, then there is nothing else by which logic could be ruled. Since there is nothing by which logic is ruled, then logic is the Absolute.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

It is able to, sure. That doesn't say anything about whether it actually is. The cases that doesn't require any god are also possible, and you still haven't presented any reason to take your arguments seriously.

You used the infinite regress argument to try to prove that it is impossible for anything to not have a cause. I refuted that argument. This is only one aspect of the whole discussion and all it is supposed to demonstrate is that it is possible for God to exist, not that God certainly exists.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

No, it is not. Logic is a framework by which to investigate these laws, not a mechanical process which drives them.

The reason we are capable of investigating reality by logic is that reality is based on the same standards as our investigations. The reason it is incorrect to form contradictory statements is that contradictions don’t occur in reality and that’s because logic forbids it.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

This is utterly incoherent. You're claiming that such a thing is impossible as evidence for your god. Burden of evidence is squarely on you. Acknowledging a possibility is not the same thing as believing; a distinction you would do well to learn.

I didn’t know you were just acknowledging the possibility of infinite regress; I thought you considered it something certain. It was a misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Nonexistence requires nonexistence. This is not a difficult concept. The law of excluded middle is an axiom about the truth of statements, not the existence of objects. You have a very badly warped notion of requirement and causality. That we can say that there are four rocks requires mathematics, but the rocks themselves do not depend on mathematics for their existence. Math, like logic, is just as easily an emerent property of our universe as anything else. There is no reason to accept your particular interpretation over others. The difference is that your arguments rests on these flimsy ideas alone; most others actually attempt to engage reality.

Previously you said logic was a function for the truth of statements, now you say it is a property of the universe.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Given that we know exactly nothing about what is outside our universe, I see no reason to rule out anything. Perhaps there are strange universes in which, by our standards, things would both exist and not.

What if God happens to both exist and not exist in such a strange universe? By our standards, our debate would be pointless, and so would our attempts to find the truth about reality. And would such “strange universes” exist, not exist or both? These doubts demonstrate that trivalent logic is absurd, even in a parallel universe. The whole reality can only be objectively described with only one type of logic, even if there are parallel universes. Let’s hypothetically say that there are two parallel universes. Then the description of reality based on bivalent logic would be: “There is one truth. The truth is that there are two universes which do not have an impact on each other. One universe contains stars, planets, living creatures, (list of chemical elements), etc. The other universe contains …” This is what a description of reality based on trivalent logic could look like: “There is and isn’t one truth. The truth is and isn’t that there are and aren’t two and three and four universes. The universes have and don’t have an impact on each other. Only one and only two and only three and only four universes contain and don’t contain only stars and only planets and only living creatures etc…” We could go on and on with such nonsense, but I suggest that we STOP and return to common sense (bivalent logic).

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Refers to, yes. Describes, yes. Defines, no. Causes, no.

Even if my understanding of logic is different from its official definition, I’d like to explain my understanding anyway. Logic is a property of reality that makes all its details consistent and coherent with each other and “forbids” contradictions. If you don’t agree that something defined so exists, present your doubts to me. If you agree, I’d like us to stick to my definition of logic for the rest of the discussion.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Yes, I've read Descartes too. It was an awful argument when he wrote it and time has not been kind to it since then. I'm not sure that my senses don't decieve me, and neither are you. I don't need to be sure. Insistence on 100% certainty is arbitrary and childish. Scientific evidence is valuable because it contributes to forming theories with predictive power that increase our ability to deal with reality. Stubborn armchair philosophy accomplishes rather less. The universe may well be an illusion, but until we have reason to think that it is we gain nothing by allowing that to impede our investigation of reality. That the existence of the universe is not contingent upon our consciousness demonstrates nothing, and certainly nothing so grandiose as a god. If you're really that impressed by Descartes, I'd advise you to keep reading, and to branch beyond the authors that conveniently agree with your preferences.

Alright, I admit that I can’t be sure whether my senses don’t deceive me either. It’s just the means of greater safety to act accordantly with the assumption that the universe is real, for then you avoid hurting other people due to thinking they weren’t real. If you think that I don’t value scientific evidence, you got me wrong. I trust in scientific evidence; however I think it cannot pass the boundaries of space and time, for those are boundaries that we humans cannot pass with our material bodies. Neither can we describe reality beyond our universe with the laws of science we have here. The only way we can attempt to investigate reality beyond time and space is deductive reasoning. As for Descartes, I did not choose him because he “conveniently agrees with my preferences”, but because I considered his theory rather logical. If you don’t agree that his theory is logical, then tell me who would be giving us the illusions of the universe. Besides, if the universe was an illusion, you could definitely not use science to refute God’s existence, for science would be an illusion as well.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Consistency doesn't guarantee correctness. "All cats are blue. All mammals are cats. Therefore all mammals are blue," is a completely consistent argument. The glaring flaws in your arguments are in the premises, not the conclusions.

I agree that consistency does not guarantee correctness if it is based on false or unsure premises. I have already tried to straighten out the case of my unsure premises in the first paragraph of this post.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I define god to be that which does not exist. Therefore, god does not exist. That is, in essense, exactly the same form as your argument but with the flowery crap cut out. I might just as well define Socratica out of existence while I'm at it. Without actual evidence to back up your definitions you have no meaningful argument.

Even if God didn’t exist, His definition would not be “that, which does not exist”, for than unicorns, fairies and dragons would also match the definition. Even though a unicorn does not exist, its definition is quite strict: “a magical horse with a natural (not attached artificially) horn on its forehead” (trying to make the definition as strict as I can). If I saw something that matches the definition, then that something would be a unicorn. Same with logic. It matches the definition of the Absolute, so it is the Absolute.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Funny; you appear to be doing exactly the same thing. But if you think that purely deductive reasoning is so powerful: what colour am I thinking of? There is only one answer. You can either get the wrong answer by making a mistake in your "calculations" (reasoning) or get the right answer by making no mistakes.

Or do you suddenly find yourself lacking evidence?

Deductive reasoning has to be built on the knowledge we have, as we build our calculations on the data we were provided with in a math problem. Indeed, we can lack some data to get an answer, like in your colour question. However I did not find myself lacking “data” in answering the question on God’s existence.
You’ve been accusing me of lacking physical evidence of God’s existence. Now let me ask you; do you have evidence that God doesn’t exist or is your atheism merely based on hope that scientists shall one day find such evidence?

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

This argument is moot because your premise of the pulsating universe theory has been scientifically rejected. The problem is entropy, more specifically, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated. This is avoided by including dark energy, however, this leads to further complications and mentioning these will tangent the argument. .

Since the pulsating universe theory has been scientifically rejected, as you claim, then that brings back the cosmological argument.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

I'm confused by your statement because non-existence needs non-existence. I don't understand how non-existence needs existence. .

Perhaps the source of confusion is the understanding of the word “nonexistence”. My understanding was nonexistence of a specific thing (like a fairy, unicorn or in the case of the paradoxical statement I formed previously -logic).
However I have also managed to explain the paradox in a less confusing way by slightly altering the paradoxical statement to “The truth is that logic does not exist.” It is paradoxical because the existence of the truth requires the existence of logic. Therefore as long as the truth exists, there is also logic. That brings the same conclusion as previously: logic is eternal.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

If the table is an illusion, it implies ones senses and internal logic cannot be trusted. However, you've assumed the table is an illusion without explaining why and how. .

It was a hypothetical assumption, which I made to demonstrate that even if the universe was an illusion, God would have to exist anyway. However I don’t see why the table being an illusion would imply that one’s internal logic cannot be trusted.