Can something illogical "exist"?

[DukeTwicep]

OK so I think I understand the first part where he creates these properties that the Bible says he has, if you mean that by giving himself these properties he is starting to create a logic that will finally be ours?
The other part, where he lives without logic, I assume that is the one you didn't write about. So, how would that be? Can he add properties to himself and create us and create our laws of logic without first creating any logic for himself?
Or perhaps I misinterpreted you and you meant that what you wrote accounts for both cases. If he lives without logic, then he creates us, he gives us a perfect logic, and that perfect logic would be his, thus he cannot have lived without logic when he created us? And this means that if he first lived in a void, he must then have created logic for himself before creating our logic. That makes sense too.

Essentially, it's the latter; the points of the initial statement (perfect logic created for God, loves humanity, so gives them perfect logic...) still stand. if God lives without logic, why would humans be created with logic?
In standard form:

R1: God is omnipotent
R2: God existed before all else.
R3: God is able to create logic, or a lack thereof (linked to R1)
IC1: God created the initial logic by which God runs. (From R1, R3 and R2)
R4: God is perfect
IC2: The logic created is the perfect logic (from IC1 and R4)
R5: God loves humanity
R6: God created everything to do with humanity
IC3: God created humanity with a good system of logic (from R5 and R6)
R7: Perfection is very good.
C: God has given humanity God's own laws of logic (or lack thereof) (from IC3 and R7).

Ah, that's much more concise, thanks, that my brain can compute . I'll have to learn more about how arguments are built. IC is Indirect Conclusion I presume? And R is a premise?

About dobbies question. Does that change anything about the argument? If God didn't create those things, then who did? The Devil? But God created the Devil so he gave him the power to create it if the Devil did indeed create it. So God is indirectly responsible for confusion as he gave the Devil "free will" and, he must in some way have exposed the Devil to evil in some alluring way to make the Devil evil. I don't know if I'm going in the right way.

[bijane]

Ah, that's much more concise, thanks, that my brain can compute . I'll have to learn more about how arguments are built. IC is Indirect Conclusion I presume? And R is a premise?

R for Reason, IC for Intermediate Conclusion, it's how I learnt critical thinking, sorry for not explaining.

But God created the Devil...So God is indirectly responsible for confusion as he gave the Devil "free will"

Just a quick note on these two statements, an omniscient Creator cannot grant free will. By virtue of omniscience, they'd know what the creation would go on to do, as well as their reasons for doing so, and other such motivations, and by virtue of being the Creator, they were directly responsible for doing it: if they'd made a change (no more interference than they already did in creating), then the creation's choices would be different. If that makes sense. It's not 'indirectly responsible', it's 'directly responsible'.

[DukeTwicep]

R for Reason, IC for Intermediate Conclusion, it's how I learnt critical thinking, sorry for not explaining.

Ah, that's OK, I know now. Are intermediate conclusions always made directly after the necessary Reasons are presented, like you did, or can they be presented further down? I don't know which is more pedagogic.

Just a quick note on these two statements, an omniscient Creator cannot grant free will. By virtue of omniscience, they'd know what the creation would go on to do, as well as their reasons for doing so, and other such motivations, and by virtue of being the Creator, they were directly responsible for doing it: if they'd made a change (no more interference than they already did in creating), then the creation's choices would be different. If that makes sense. It's not 'indirectly responsible', it's 'directly responsible'.

I didn't think about that part, about knowing the future, I guess I disregarded it as it will create an infinite regress for god and thus he can't see into the future (and thus he is not omniscient perhaps).

But I thought about free will too, as free will is only possible for one who is omniscient and totally objective, not affected by anything else... whatever "anything else" would be, I don't know. At least, that's what I got from thinking about free will. Totally and pure free will that is. I however think it's just a bad word as it sounds like an oxymoron, how can you have a mind if you can't be affected by anything from the outside? And how could you have any views at all without getting them from somewhere?

[bijane]

Ah, that's OK, I know now. Are intermediate conclusions always made directly after the necessary Reasons are presented, like you did, or can they be presented further down? I don't know which is more pedagogic.

I guess that much is just personal taste. I always write them after the reasons as it's easier to read. Not certain though, it's years since I studied it.

I didn't think about that part, about knowing the future, I guess I disregarded it as it will create an infinite regress for god and thus he can't see into the future (and thus he is not omniscient perhaps).

But I thought about free will too, as free will is only possible for one who is omniscient and totally objective, not affected by anything else... whatever "anything else" would be, I don't know. At least, that's what I got from thinking about free will. Totally and pure free will that is. I however think it's just a bad word as it sounds like an oxymoron, how can you have a mind if you can't be affected by anything from the outside? And how could you have any views at all without getting them from somewhere?

Omniscience wouldn't purely be seeing into the future (though evidently the biblical God can if you believe in the prophecies), as you said: choices are made from our experiences etc: psychohistory, if you've read Asimov. It's kind of free will I suppose, except our choices are known, and it would be no greater amount of interference to create things slightly differently and thus make a nicer universe.

[DukeTwicep]

Omniscience wouldn't purely be seeing into the future (though evidently the biblical God can if you believe in the prophecies), as you said: choices are made from our experiences etc: psychohistory, if you've read Asimov. It's kind of free will I suppose, except our choices are known, and it would be no greater amount of interference to create things slightly differently and thus make a nicer universe.

Oo Asimov, one of my, or The, favourite author(s). No I have only read most of the Robot books and the foundation series. What are the books called that deal with psychohistory?

Btw, how would the omniscient god see into the future if not purely? You mean, not constantly, just snips he would request?

[bijane]

Oo Asimov, one of my, or The, favourite author(s). No I have only read most of the Robot books and the foundation series. What are the books called that deal with psychohistory?

Foundation: Seldon's idea, he was able to predict general trends of the future by limited existing knowledge, and while it's fiction, if an essentially omniscient being simply thought about it, then it'd have a completely accurate version of psychohistory: with no possible mistakes due to genetic anomalies etc as it would already know the layout of genes.

Btw, how would the omniscient god see into the future if not purely? You mean, not constantly, just snips he would request?

I meant more that it would inherently have to see the future by directly seeing the future, but it could essentially know what would happen by what was/had happened.

[DukeTwicep]

Oo Asimov, one of my, or The, favourite author(s). No I have only read most of the Robot books and the foundation series. What are the books called that deal with psychohistory?

Foundation: Seldon's idea, he was able to predict general trends of the future by limited existing knowledge, and while it's fiction, if an essentially omniscient being simply thought about it, then it'd have a completely accurate version of psychohistory: with no possible mistakes due to genetic anomalies etc as it would already know the layout of genes.

Aah, that book, now I remember. Yes, that was the book I first got the idea that we might not have free will. I also thought that perhaps it would be possible to do just what Seldon did. But, of course, just probability. I think one would have to have a computer larger than the universe to compute the future of the definite future of the whole universe. One would also have to observe all particles at the same time. And to predict the dark matter/energy particles one would Have to be outside the universe to see their whole movement. Crazy. But one could make it easier and just make predictions of things that have a great impact on the stuff one ultimately want to predict. Galaxies far far away will only have a fractional impact on the lives of the people on Earth.

I wouldn't be surprised if people have already tried this, or perhaps are still trying to. You basically have to start to figure out what factors have the most impact on the thing you want to create, and then you have to create mathematical models for every such factor. Quite a big project :p, but I guess it depends largely of what you want to predict. If you want to predict the possibility of a person thinking about the number 2, there are ways to do that, or you can manipulate the person to make him think about it. Like magicians and con artists do.

Btw, how would the omniscient god see into the future if not purely? You mean, not constantly, just snips he would request?

I meant more that it would inherently have to see the future by directly seeing the future, but it could essentially know what would happen by what was/had happened.

Ah, I get it, by your former paragraph he knows the future of everyone because he knows their psychohistory. But.. if he knows everything about himself and knows his own future, won't That create an infinite regress?

[bijane]

Ah, I get it, by your former paragraph he knows the future of everyone because he knows their psychohistory. But.. if he knows everything about himself and knows his own future, won't That create an infinite regress?

Only if he exists: it's an argument of sorts in its own right:

Possibility One: God exists

God knows everything: including his own future
God created the universe perfectly, as he could, and it is what an all-loving God would do.
This did not happen.

Possibility Two: No God

The universe exists. The end. Have a nice day.

Possibility Three: Impossible, God Exists

God knows everything: including his own future
God created this imperfect universe
God created this universe as his personality said he must
God's personality is perfect. The universe is not.
God did what his future said he must: except that future only exists, because he was essentially destined to do so by force of his personality.
God's personality thus contradicts God's personality.
Impossible

If that makes sense. The reason for the future is the key here, not the future as it exists. It's the whole 'Can God change his mind?' paradox: he can, but he has no reason to, if he's God.
I hope I made sense, it was hard to express.

[DukeTwicep]

If that makes sense. The reason for the future is the key here, not the future as it exists. It's the whole 'Can God change his mind?' paradox: he can, but he has no reason to, if he's God.
I hope I made sense, it was hard to express.

Yeah that last one was a little hard, but I think I understand.
Just one question. God has free will right? If he exists that is. I mean he doesn't get influenced by anything from the outside, everything comes from himself. Or is it a paradox to have free will and at the same time know one's psychohistory perfectly... oh wait, yeah that would create an infinite regress too. Because the knowledge of his history would be added as a knowledge and then a new composition of his knowledge would have to be created. Man.. everything about god is paradoxical. :p
And about him changing his mind... he's changing his mind all the time in the Bible. It's weird that the writers didn't think to counter that, didn't they think it was weird that god could change his mind? I think it's crazy, I mean if he's God he has to have the perfect idea from the beginning, if he's almighty.

It's nice that you are taking the time to explain, I'm very grateful for that. I hope I'm not wasting your time or anything.
It's sad that there aren't many people on-line here any more. And the wiki is probably even more abandoned by the looks of the dates on the conversations :/.

[bijane]

Just one question. God has free will right? If he exists that is. I mean he doesn't get influenced by anything from the outside, everything comes from himself. Or is it a paradox to have free will and at the same time know one's psychohistory perfectly... oh wait, yeah that would create an infinite regress too. Because the knowledge of his history would be added as a knowledge and then a new composition of his knowledge would have to be created. Man.. everything about god is paradoxical. :p

That's why I enjoy thinking about God: I'm strange, I love little paradoxes like these. I think knowledge would essentially be added together to infinity: but in any case, God's supposedly so perfect he's unaffected by such events, instead acting solely on the basis of his personality rather than by reaction. Which just builds up other paradoxes, but still...

And about him changing his mind... he's changing his mind all the time in the Bible. It's weird that the writers didn't think to counter that, didn't they think it was weird that god could change his mind? I think it's crazy, I mean if he's God he has to have the perfect idea from the beginning, if he's almighty.

It could conceivably just be poetic license in the portrayal, but it's still bizarre. like the flood. He did it with the knowledge he'd regret it and promise never to do it?

It's nice that you are taking the time to explain, I'm very grateful for that. I hope I'm not wasting your time or anything.
It's sad that there aren't many people on-line here any more. And the wiki is probably even more abandoned by the looks of the dates on the conversations :/.

Nah, I'm happy to talk.
Well, a couple of people are active, and I've seen a few wiki updates. Hopefully life'll return to the forum... sometime.

[DukeTwicep]

That's why I enjoy thinking about God: I'm strange, I love little paradoxes like these. I think knowledge would essentially be added together to infinity: but in any case, God's supposedly so perfect he's unaffected by such events, instead acting solely on the basis of his personality rather than by reaction. Which just builds up other paradoxes, but still...

Perhaps you like time paradoxes too? I've watched quite a bit of Star Trek so I've got my share of it , very strange events, and they even comment on the strangeness in the episodes, which I find very humorous.
Hm, well, I guess they didn't agree on what logic to go by when they thought that God must be unaffected by such things. But I'm sure it builds up paradoxes, whatever logic you agree on using.

It could conceivably just be poetic license in the portrayal, but it's still bizarre. like the flood. He did it with the knowledge he'd regret it and promise never to do it?

Yes, although I think more of the creation of Adam and Eve. And the tree of knowledge... why did he even Have to put that there? That's like saying, 'Well, let's put a red button here that says "Do Not Press", and we'll see what happens'. And it might not have been in the first days they ate from it either, maybe they lived for millennia before somebody made the mistake of forgetting what God said..
And how are they created perfect if they can be seduced by a snake, hanging from a tree? And if they're not created perfect, then God must understand that imperfect creations make mistakes. Aside from the fact that God would know what would happen.

Or the Jesus story. I mean, first God goes around and slaughter a bunch of millions of people and then he says like, "Oh, from now on I'm not going to interfere or kill any more. And you will all go to heaven if you just believe that I exist, my son, and my holy ghost." And because I slaughtered some millions of you people, I'm going to give my son to you and let you slaughter him. (He will probably not suffer as he's God too, and gods can't suffer, although he will make you think he suffers) Then he's going to be reborn and go home again (Just like those millions of people God slaughtered? What a fair bargain).
Oh, and by the way, all the laws and stuff from the last old book that the Jews have, you still have to follow those. You know -- those rules I made up, just because I knew you couldn't make it on your own, because I can see the future...

Added by late Christians in secret:
"And God said: Many false scholars will make my people think that I cannot exist because of paradoxes. But, hear, I sayeth to ye, I am immune to paradoxes. Do not listen to these false scholars. Though they may bring you riches and joy, cure diseases and food on everyone's table, comfort and long lives - remember, this life is only temporary, and when you die you will burn for an eternity if thy has not pledged yourself to me. But I love you all."

When I socialized with people in school we used to talk about stuff like this. It's really fun to talk about all the ridiculous conclusions of some random made up premises. At least it makes the time go faster.

[DukeTwicep]

Anyway. I was thinking about putting this up on the wiki, but I'm not sure where to put it, and what to call it. Anyone have any ideas?
In my opinion, there is a section missing from the 4 starting points, and that's a section that deals with how to debate and what's important. E.g. when it's OK, and when it's not a good time, to debate a religious person. What attitude to use, e.g. try to convince by logic, emotion, calm friendly discussion, etc.
And perhaps this argument would fit better there than in "Arguments against the existence of god".

[bijane]

Anyway. I was thinking about putting this up on the wiki, but I'm not sure where to put it, and what to call it. Anyone have any ideas?
In my opinion, there is a section missing from the 4 starting points, and that's a section that deals with how to debate and what's important. E.g. when it's OK, and when it's not a good time, to debate a religious person. What attitude to use, e.g. try to convince by logic, emotion, calm friendly discussion, etc.
And perhaps this argument would fit better there than in "Arguments against the existence of god".

In that case it'd probably be better to make a post in the 'wiki feedback' section, though I'm not sure a section on debating tips would wholly be relevant as it's general knowledge more then theism based. Maybe a subsidiary of the page on 'logic' or 'God', or a new 'God's Logic'?

[dobbie]

byBijane:

R1: God is omnipotent
R2: God existed before all else.

If it's supposed to be the Bible God, it can be argued that ...

1) The Bible itself does not teach that God is omnipotent, just more powerful than other gods or forces.

2) Neither does the Bible does explicitly teach that God existed before all else, just the maker of, the one who formed, everything. In other words, formed everything out of a primeval ocean as in Genesis 1.

Thus the two "R" premises above may not be reliable. And the first one about omnipotence is necessarily incomprehensible. Which philosopher or theologian can make clear sense of it?

[DukeTwicep]

...though I'm not sure a section on debating tips would wholly be relevant as it's general knowledge more then theism based...

But debating theists is so much different from debating with "normal" non-delusional people, theists become more unstable when confronted about this. They make up their own rules and so on, I wouldn't say it's like debating Just another person.

1) The Bible itself does not teach that God is omnipotent, just more powerful than other gods or forces.

But the Bible says that God is almighty, isn't that a synonym for omnipotent?
And I mean, if God isn't omnipotent, that reduces him a Lot. I'm not even sure he can be the beginning of everything then. He would have to be bound by laws that would limit him - but then, so is the god that bijane came up with using this argument.
So perhaps we would have to add another case where we remove the omnipotent part.
But if god wouldn't be the beginning, then I don't see how or why the Real beginning of everything would create a god.