Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Glowcat]

Yeah, that's about right. In my life (<- there, that piece is important), things need purpose to exist. So the same goes vice versa, because stuff exists, it must have a purpose. From the tiniest neutron to the universe itself. And purpose implies intelligence, therefore, a God.

Why do you believe purpose precedes existence? I would imagine that you often improvise with tools that weren't designed with a certain action in mind and yet use them fulfill an immediate need of yours. Design is only the action of shaping something (not necessarily an object) to be better fit for a particular desire. I have never observed purpose as anything more than a spontaneous and transient motivation ushered into being on the willful part of an agent.

[Leafsnail]

Yeah, that's about right. In my life (<- there, that piece is important), things need purpose to exist. So the same goes vice versa, because stuff exists, it must have a purpose. From the tiniest neutron to the universe itself. And purpose implies intelligence, therefore, a God.

I don't think that's valid at all.  Why do things have a purpose?  Because there's a God.  Why is there a God?  Because things have a purpose.  It's a pretty clear example of circular reasoning.

[Shades]

Yeah, that's about right. In my life (<- there, that piece is important), things need purpose to exist. So the same goes vice versa, because stuff exists, it must have a purpose. From the tiniest neutron to the universe itself. And purpose implies intelligence, therefore, a God.

By your argument then god itself must have a purpose and so he must have also been designed by someone. So who designed her?

[Siquo]

By your argument then god itself must have a purpose and so he must have also been designed by someone. So who designed her?

Yeah, I knew someone was going to call me on that
Let's just say: God Over Djinn. Or, if you like, an intelligent agent can create its own purpose. "I have a purpose, therefore I am", if you will.

I don't think that's valid at all.  Why do things have a purpose?  Because there's a God.  Why is there a God?  Because things have a purpose.  It's a pretty clear example of circular reasoning.

Yep. That's a shortcoming of Logic, not of my reasons You can't keep asking "why" and keep getting meaningful answers. I'll play the game with you if you don't believe it, but any 3-year old can do the same.

Why do you believe purpose precedes existence? I would imagine that you often improvise with tools that weren't designed with a certain action in mind and yet use them fulfill an immediate need of yours. Design is only the action of shaping something (not necessarily an object) to be better fit for a particular desire. I have never observed purpose as anything more than a spontaneous and transient motivation ushered into being on the willful part of an agent.

Of course that is the most useful way of thinking about stuff: we are the ones who give purpose to anything. However, I refuse to believe that anything we have no purpose for, has no purpose at all.

[Leafsnail]

Yep. That's a shortcoming of Logic, not of my reasons You can't keep asking "why" and keep getting meaningful answers.

...Ok, that's a staggeringly arrogant thing to say.  Followed by a completely true statement.

You appear to be saying that you're above logic itself.

[Siquo]

You appear to be saying that you're above logic itself.

Of course I am: I am a human being, not a computer.

Edit: For current values of "computer" of course, I don't want to offend our future overlords.

[Il Palazzo]

Siquo just made an argument to end all arguments - when the logical coherence of my statements fails, you can't call me on that because I wasn't trying to use logic in my reasoning in the first place.
Therefore, he appears to have proven the ages old suspicion: if you're religious, you're not logical.
Or maybe that's just Siquo.

[Siquo]

I have stated again and again that "logic" is a very smal set of rules, only useable in very specific cases, most of which virtual or hypothetical. Of course it can be useful, but to rely on it as the only means of expressing yourself is very... Spock.

[Il Palazzo]

Well, I must be living in the 19th century then, or something. All this new age mumbo jumbo doesn't really tickle my fancy.
But surely, you could at least provide a few examples of situations where logic doesn't apply(perhaps you're going to include internet discussions?)? Unless that'd be too logical.

disclaimer: I'm aggressive-defensive, because logic is my god, and you're attacking it.

[Shades]

I don't think that's valid at all.  Why do things have a purpose?  Because there's a God.  Why is there a God?  Because things have a purpose.  It's a pretty clear example of circular reasoning.

Yep. That's a shortcoming of Logic, not of my reasons You can't keep asking "why" and keep getting meaningful answers. I'll play the game with you if you don't believe it, but any 3-year old can do the same.

No it's not. Circular reasoning is not what 3-year olds to, they follow the why path back which is a form of investigation.

I have stated again and again that "logic" is a very smal set of rules, only useable in very specific cases, most of which virtual or hypothetical. Of course it can be useful, but to rely on it as the only means of expressing yourself is very... Spock.

You have no idea what logic means do you?

Edit: I don't know why I phrased that as a question, it's clear from your last few answers your confusing logic with something else.

[Sowelu]

There are arguments of fact and logic, and then there are arguments of feelings and policy.  It's pointless to mix the two of them, but they're both valid.

...however in this thread, for the most part, logic reigns.  That's why it's the "atheism" thread, not the "religion" thread.  Hell I'm very religious and I've had to cede to logical atheism.  I've just changed my arguments away from "Logic might support my stance" to "The stated beliefs are probably false, but the rituals are beneficial".

I'm guessing that anyone who wants to talk about their religion in this thread is going to have to give some ground on the logic-and-reality parts, and acknowledge what their system lacks.

besides, if any God would get a kick out of converting to atheism for the lulz, it would be mine

[Shades]

There are arguments of fact and logic, and then there are arguments of feelings and policy.  It's pointless to mix the two of them, but they're both valid.

No, they are the same don't pretend otherwise. All religions are based on logical deduction it's just the initial premises which atheism claims to be flawed.

besides, if any God would get a kick out of converting to atheism for the lulz, it would be mine

I think most capital g gods would have to be atheists as they wouldn't believe in a higher power.

[Siquo]

You have no idea what logic means do you?

That depends on what you mean by it. I did pass my Propositional Logic class in University when I was studying AI.

Il Palazzo: God is the end of the "why" game. A game toddlers can play, and Socrates raised it to adult levels. Eventually, there is no meaningful answer without resorting to circular reasoning.

Example, after 20 "whys" you eventually end up at:
A: Why do we exist?
B: There is no why.
A: I'm asking why. Why is there no why?

Here your "logic" fails you. There is no meaningful answer. Why? Because logic has limitations. Humans are not logical. Spock is, computers are, but we're not. We can, but we can do so much more.

I think most capital g gods would have to be atheists as they wouldn't believe in a higher power.

That's pretty funny Unless it's a God-Over-Djinn-type God.

[Il Palazzo]

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the statement that humans are not logical. Everything we do always has a good reason(even if, often, base). The subset of mankind which does not follow logic is called "lunatics".

Example, after 20 "whys" you eventually end up at:
A: Why do we exist?
B: There is no why.
A: I'm asking why. Why is there no why?

Here your "logic" fails you. There is no meaningful answer. Why? Because logic has limitations. Humans are not logical. Spock is, computers are, but we're not. We can, but we can do so much more.

Well, sure, one can always ask a silly question that has no answer. It's not the fault of whatever tool you're going to use, that you can't find an answer. You've just asked a silly question.

[Shades]

Example, after 20 "whys" you eventually end up at:
A: Why do we exist?
B: There is no why.
A: I'm asking why. Why is there no why?

Just because person B doesn't know the answer doesn't mean the logic fails. If anything it means the human has failed which is the opposite of what you said. This also leads me back to asking if you know what logic is, and passing a class in uni doesn't mean you understand it I past a lot of classes in uni, many I never turned up for.