41
That CAN'T be true! / Re: God real or not
« on: 01/10/2006 07:41:41 »
Sorry to speak frankly, but there is very little logical about god. He is argued to be every opposing extreme in monotheistic religion as well as pantheistic religions, which cover most modern religions. I never intended to say that science and logic are the same. They are tools, which together help us understand nature. Science without logic existed in early greek and egyptian history. Logic exists without science.
Solipsism is essentially the philosophical scepticism of science. I'm taking much liberty to paraphrase it as such, but the belief that what we measure and observe is not to be trusted is the same to me.
The extremism of infinity is absolutely different from how i mean the term to describe a philosophy or rhetoric. Perhaps 'radical' would be a more fitting term. The way it claims that we cannot claim anything about the outside world is taking a simple fact that observations are tainted by the observer- to the maximum tangible level.
Ok, back to the logical issues with debating god- a logical implication A implies B may be true if A is false or if both A and B are true - and if the truth of A actually tells you about the truth of B, yet in theological arguments, people often try to use this to prove B, which is unprovable by use of A that is simply true but has nothing to do with B. I.E.- Look at how beautiful a butterfly is! The beauty of the butterfly must mean there is a god! or The bullet just barely missed me so there must be a god!
Solipsism is essentially the philosophical scepticism of science. I'm taking much liberty to paraphrase it as such, but the belief that what we measure and observe is not to be trusted is the same to me.
The extremism of infinity is absolutely different from how i mean the term to describe a philosophy or rhetoric. Perhaps 'radical' would be a more fitting term. The way it claims that we cannot claim anything about the outside world is taking a simple fact that observations are tainted by the observer- to the maximum tangible level.
Ok, back to the logical issues with debating god- a logical implication A implies B may be true if A is false or if both A and B are true - and if the truth of A actually tells you about the truth of B, yet in theological arguments, people often try to use this to prove B, which is unprovable by use of A that is simply true but has nothing to do with B. I.E.- Look at how beautiful a butterfly is! The beauty of the butterfly must mean there is a god! or The bullet just barely missed me so there must be a god!