Quote:
Originally Posted by Caspian  I await a new example aside from your "Joke." I understand your joke, you dont have to keep explaining it (I still think you got your own joke wrong by the way) But dont take my word for it. YouTube- 1+1=Window Your example proves nothing. You've essnetially programmed a computer to give a logical answer—and through trickery—you've somehow concluded the computer was wrong.
I recall, earlier in our argument, you said something to the effect that "Math is not a good analogy for logic" (although i sevrely disagree) I wonder how it is that you consider jokes and riddles to be more logically sound then mathamatics.
If logic does not apply to god. Then you can make no logical case in favor of God. I have no problem with this, but many religious people will have a problem with this. I dont think this site along with the majority of religious people share your view that "God being illogical is not a big issue" afterall the other thread which deals with a muslim-attack on the concept of Nirgan Sargun as being illogical has received significant attention. Religious people dont want to believe in a illogical god. So if you have no problem with it—thas fine with me, we agree that god can be illogical and you have no problem with it. Its just, i think more people would have a problem with god being illogical—will you help convince them that its ok for their god to be illogical then? That it doesnt matter if there god is illogical? |
Meh! Shall we rewind a little to remind ourselves of the sticking point between us?
Initialy it was your stance that determinism negates free will. As proof of this you gave an anology of God watching a movie. I said that this anology does not really work, as it assumes too much of what God is and how God works. I then said that you need to show me the proofs for these assumptions before we can belive this anolgy.
You did not attempt to do this, instead you counterred saying that I must belive then that God is 'above' us, and then you gave your example of how 2+2=4 and that a man could not contradict a computer when it gives such output. Supposed to show that logicaly speaking the creator cannot contradict the logic of the created.
Here is the thing then this anolgy rest soley on pure maths. Indeed in pure maths 2+2= 4, whether the computer says so or the man, and the correct answer must be 4 and so in this instance than creator cannot indeed contradict the answer form the computer.
My claim is that a computer is always limited by it's programing, I used a riddle to show the differance in the comprehension of a question does make a differance in it's answering. What is my intent in doing this?
To show you that the creator can always contradict the asnwer of the created evem if it appears that the creatd is correct. Unless the question is fully understand the created can indeed make what it assumes is a correct answer yet the creator knows is incorrect and thus the creator can contradict a correct answer form the created.
You say two things about this, the second one is that you do understand my meaing, which leads me to great confussion, because if you did then why would you argue that it is illogical? It makes perfect sense to me.
Yet again let me explain this one to you. I really have no problems with the concept of an illogical God, as really when we say this what we mean is that our compehension of God is incompleat and so just like the computer what we know of God may appears to US to be illogical.
I think you'll find that in fact counter to your assertion that not many religions nor religious people will see things this way, I think the vast majority of them see things exactly like this.