I must agree with your reasoning.
Entirely, or just on the anthropomorphic principle? I was wondering if you could critique my position on deities, instead of just agreeing with me (If you agree, that's cool too). :/
I can feel that there is some kind of logical fallacy I am committing, at least in this thread:
Between Octobrist and I. Maybe I'm not making a fallacy, perhaps you can help me.
---------- Post added 03-27-2010 at 02:36 AM ----------
Can you prove that there isn't some degree of idealism to the empirical world? You make arguments against the idea of god in that thread, but you do realise that almost ALL religious thought presupposes some degree of ideality or illusoriness of the external world?
If the external world isn't completely separate from ourselves then that immediately limits what science can tell us doesn't it?
But of course! They must!
How else would they survive this long? Even if there is no need for a deity, or something of the supernatural, to explain everything, we'll make one to find meaning. But I digress. You make a popular point; what if god is completely outside of our reality or out of observable evidence?
It is a good point, but there is a glaring flaw. If that deity cannot be disproved with the concepts of our realm, (time ect.) then nothing
from our lexicon could be used to even explain that deity. If I couldn't disprove that her realm needed to be created and that she couldn't have been the cause, then nothing in her realm is logical. No logic can be applied and the only thing she can begat in her realm would be completely inconceivable and illogical itself. So, what's wrong with that? All that means is that we just can't understand her, right? Well, the thing is, we can't even use the term illogic to describe her realm. That creates quite a quagmire. She can't be illogical and she can't be logical, at the same time!
. Because we can't use those terms. So now try it with the terms existence and nonexistence.
Now, I know you are thinking "Strawman!" But I was merely covering the popular position that "god's ways are not our ways" and that our logic can't be used on her.
But, the other option is that this deity is logical . . . (what ever else follows doesn't matter) Time does not permit a logical being.
Science doesn't need to tell us anything to disprove a God. That is where philosophy comes in. Of course you can't empirically disprove, with publicly verifiable, evidence that God doesn't exist (hard scientific) but with principles of logic and a bit of knowledge about concepts of time, a deity can be disproved. When people hold the position that God cannot be disproved they are thinking scientifically. It is like saying scientifically disprove that there isn't an invisible undetectable clown on my head! As of now, you can't do that based on what the definition of clown is. If the definition of clown was:
an invisible and undetectable being that was eternal and infinite, we could have a chance at disproving it.
I must say, you got me thinking a bit there, and your criticism is always welcome. If you don't have anything else you would like to add, I think I will add your position to the criticism part of my thread. :bigsmile: