It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kant's Transcendental Argument For God: logical or not?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

No its my definition of God and rather than explain why you think it's illogical you simply want to dismiss the idea as silly.


Your definition isn't a definition at all, its an opinion on what you want him to be and why it appeals to you. None of which constitutes a legitimate profile of his nature.




posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Prezbo369
No logic is a refection of the nature of God. It isn't that he is a slave. Its that logical impossibilities cannot happen. Omnipotence doesn't mean you can make a square circle or that it can create a rock more powerful than all power. These are logical impossibilities. It means anything that can logically happen you can do. Logic is rooted in the very essence of God's personhood. If the being we are talking about is not perfectly logical then we have quite talking about the same being which means we aren't talking about God.


So the apparent lord and creator of reality, the agent that created and put into place all of the laws and logic that govern the universe, is powerless to change or alter them (if it so wished...)?

I thought gods were all about making the impossible possible?

edit on 18-12-2015 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

He is trying to boost plausibility by crudely injecting basic rhetoric to off set the magic factor. Like adding water to piss to make it more palatable.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t




This doesn't make any sense, nor does it explain why you know how things work outside of our universe.


So you are saying if our universe didn't exist you could have nothing and something at the same time? That doesn't make any sense what I am saying is completely coherent.


Maybe. Scientific laws only apply to within the universe.


I haven't just dismissed them. i have told you why I have problems with what you have said. i didn't simply say they weren't logical I gave my reasons for believing so. You don't seem to realize the world of nonsense you fall into when you say the law of identity or the law of noncontradiction cease to reamin true.


Yet you refuse to acknowledge that all the laws of science and logic only apply within the universe. As we don't know the parameters of how things work outside the universe, we cannot reasonably extend the laws that function within the universe to outside the universe.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I was asked to define God logically. I gave a logical definition of God. If you don't think its logical then show where it is actually not in coherence with the rules of logic.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369




So the apparent lord and creator of reality, the agent that created and put into place all of the laws and logic that govern the universe, is powerless to change or alter them (if it so wished...)?

I thought gods were all about making the impossible possible?


Changing the physical laws of the universe and changing god's essence are totally different things. Logic is part of God's essence meaning part of what makes God, God. It is not logically impossible for the red sea to split, or a man to walk on water. It simply requires a reworking of the physics of the world in such a way that the desired effect is achieved. Nothing about the physical laws of this world say that they have to remain the same today as they did yesterday we simply infer that based on induction. Miracles are times when God changes the nature of the design of the universe not a change of who God is.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Maybe. Scientific laws only apply to within the universe.


This is not a Science question. The question was can you have nothing, which would be the absence of all things, and something, which would be a thing, at the same time?




Yet you refuse to acknowledge that all the laws of science and logic only apply within the universe. As we don't know the parameters of how things work outside the universe, we cannot reasonably extend the laws that function within the universe to outside the universe.


This view is internally incoherent. If the laws of logic don't exist outside this universe, then I could say the laws of logic don't exist outside this universe and the laws of logic do exist outside this universe at the same time. You would have no way to refute that statement if you are just going to abandon logic which is what you are doing.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Maybe. Scientific laws only apply to within the universe.


This is not a Science question. The question was can you have nothing, which would be the absence of all things, and something, which would be a thing, at the same time?


The idea of a cause and effect is Newton's Third Law of Motion. Sorry bud you invoked Science before I did, now you have to live by it.


This view is internally incoherent. If the laws of logic don't exist outside this universe, then I could say the laws of logic don't exist outside this universe and the laws of logic do exist outside this universe at the same time. You would have no way to refute that statement if you are just going to abandon logic which is what you are doing.


I can't prove or disprove ANYTHING about how things work outside the universe because we have no way of viewing things outside the universe. Therefore it is impossible to describe what does and doesn't happen outside the universe.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t





The idea of a cause and effect is Newton's Third Law of Motion. Sorry bud you invoked Science before I did, now you have to live by it.


Are you even reading what I've said? That has nothing to do with the law of cause and effect....I didn't ask can nothing cause something. I said can you have nothing and something at the same time? That is a totally different question but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you misunderstood.




I can't prove or disprove ANYTHING about how things work outside the universe because we have no way of viewing things outside the universe. Therefore it is impossible to describe what does and doesn't happen outside the universe.



Ok your still missing the point here. Lets say for a minute you are right and the law of identity and non-contradiction break down outside of our universe. That means we could say that the laws of logic broke down and they aren't broke down at the same time. Its a completely incoherent view and there is no way around it.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Ok your still missing the point here. Lets say for a minute you are right and the law of identity and non-contradiction break down outside of our universe. That means we could say that the laws of logic broke down and they aren't broke down at the same time. Its a completely incoherent view and there is no way around it.


Well it's hard to conceptualize for us because we live in a universe governed by the rules of logic, but we are talking about how things work outside of the universe. By stating you know how things work outside of the universe, you are making a bigger claim than any scientist on earth.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

I was asked to define God logically. I gave a logical definition of God. If you don't think its logical then show where it is actually not in coherence with the rules of logic.


"The greatest possible being" is not an answer or definition, its straight up lazy. As in you put no effort at all into it. So why should I exert the effort?



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t





Well it's hard to conceptualize for us because we live in a universe governed by the rules of logic, but we are talking about how things work outside of the universe. By stating you know how things work outside of the universe, you are making a bigger claim than any scientist on earth.


Welcome to the realm of philosophy. Logic dictates rationality. You are not being rational there is no way around that. If you choose to believe that you can have nothing and something at the same time so be it, but that's simply ridiculous and there is nothing more that I can do than tell you how ridiculously incoherent that ideology is. Just because I don't know how mechanisms work outside of our natural laws does not mean that Something is not itself is a true statement........like i dont see why thats hard for you to comprehend.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

There is actually much more thought behind that definition than you know. You haven't shown one logical inconsistency in what I have I said other than you don't like it....lol I am sorry but you don't have to like it thats what it is.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Welcome to the realm of philosophy. Logic dictates rationality. You are not being rational there is no way around that. If you choose to believe that you can have nothing and something at the same time so be it, but that's simply ridiculous and there is nothing more that I can do than tell you how ridiculously incoherent that ideology is. Just because I don't know how mechanisms work outside of our natural laws does not mean that Something is not itself is a true statement........like i dont see why thats hard for you to comprehend.


No, you are saying I'm being irrational because you can't conceptualize what I'm talking about so you think it is irrational. But just because you cannot picture something in your head doesn't mean it can't exist. Try picturing a 4-D cube (also called a hypercube) in your head. Do you think they aren't possible? Ok, now do a 5-D cube. Got that one? Now do a 6-D cube.

I'm also not saying the opposite is true either. You are putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that we don't know how things work outside the universe, so make assertions about it is dishonest.

PS: Your argument is rather simplistic and easy to comprehend. I am having no problems understanding your words. However, you are purposely misunderstanding my words as evidenced by trying to say that I'm saying that because we don't know if logic works outside the universe, that suddenly means I'm saying the opposite is true. I'm not. I'm saying I don't know. I'm taking the agnostic approach because testing logic outside of our universe is currently impossible.
edit on 18-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




However, you are purposely misunderstanding my words as evidenced by trying to say that I'm saying that because we don't know if logic works outside the universe, that suddenly means I'm saying the opposite is true. I'm not. I'm saying I don't know. I'm taking the agnostic approach because testing logic outside of our universe is currently impossible.


If there was nothing, absence of all things, would our universe exist?



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t




However, you are purposely misunderstanding my words as evidenced by trying to say that I'm saying that because we don't know if logic works outside the universe, that suddenly means I'm saying the opposite is true. I'm not. I'm saying I don't know. I'm taking the agnostic approach because testing logic outside of our universe is currently impossible.


If there was nothing, absence of all things, would our universe exist?


I don't know. I don't know what caused our universe to exist in the first place (if there even was a cause), so how am I supposed to answer that question?



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

There is actually much more thought behind that definition than you know. You haven't shown one logical inconsistency in what I have I said other than you don't like it....lol I am sorry but you don't have to like it thats what it is.



. Logic
Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. With TAG's argument, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. However, if logic is created by or contingent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary, and God can change it on God's fiat. Thus God can change the laws of identity to make it invalid at some point, making statements not the same as itself. Since logic is contingent to God as one of His creation, to argue that God cannot change laws of logic blows away God's omnipotence. As a result, the claim that logic is dependent on God is false.


One of the many points rationalwiki has to make on the subject.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Claiming confirmation bias doesn't make it so.

It does, IF you know what it is, and have an honest intellect, with no belief infection to feed so that you can see it for yourself!
Many 'claims' assume a basic level of education, as did what I said.
Here is not the place to educate you from scratch.
One cannot educate a belief infection; pearls before swine.
See; Chess playing pigeon.
Info is all over the net, if you were honest and wanted truth, rather than merely to confirm your biases/beliefs.
If you were honest, you'd get some info here, and go do your homework, rather than challenging every little point so you can obfuscate it more with more picayune obfuscatory demands.
I've been here before.
Enjoy your (Faithless) beliefs.
edit on 18-12-2015 by namelesss because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join