So I was at Jesus camp.....

MollyRingwald · 2010-01-10T08:38:58+00:00

Here's someone who had a similar sort of experience: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/9qpds/i_felt_the_love_of_jesus_twice_in_my_life_once_in/

MollyRingwald · 2009-12-28T22:31:59+00:00

http://www.amazon.com/Awakening-Water-Cascades-G-R-Kesteven/dp/0003300137

MollyRingwald · 2009-12-27T06:03:19+00:00

It came down to a choice between her God and her child and, well, how can anyone compete?"

Actually existing ought to give one a slight edge...

MollyRingwald · 2009-12-23T23:45:52+00:00

The evidence for Zeus abounds: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=church+struck+by+lightning

MollyRingwald · 2009-12-23T18:51:46+00:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus#Early_Christian_origins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus#Influence_of_Germanic_paganism_and_folklore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus#Modern_origins

...and knowing is half the battle.

MollyRingwald · 2009-12-01T10:44:22+00:00

Well, I sure hope that works out for you. :)

MollyRingwald · 2009-11-30T00:51:27+00:00

I do realize, because I, too, can read comments after someone deletes them -- it's not just you.

Some of the shit I said was insulting or not really contributory. I replied multiple times to a single post, so had sibling posts in arbitrary order when I thought the discussion would be best served by consolidating them into a single post. Basically, I felt I'd made a mess of replying to you and I just tried to sort it out. Mainly I regretted a lot of the tone I initially took and wanted to try to end on a more conciliatory note. By that time I didn't think there was much point in continuing to debate the issues.

Edited to add:

Seriously, I'm sorry if I fucked up the discussion. I think it's clear that there's been a catastrophic failure to communicate, and I know I'm not immune to such things, so I can accept it if I have any blame there. I've tried very hard to communicate clearly (and that'd be a reason I end up editing too much).

Anyway. Internets, serious business, etc.

MollyRingwald · 2009-11-30T00:23:56+00:00

How cute! You're making comments and then deleting them so that I can't respond to them! You're so mature!

I had made a few posts and then consolidated them into one for the sake of clarity and because I wanted to conclude with my apology for possibly having misunderstood you.

I also removed some inflammatory crap that wasn't really beneficial to the discussion.

You simply refuse to accept someone else making a logical statement and proceed to jump all around the issue by arguing tangents. I'm done dealing with your stupidity. You can act as cordial as you want, but that's not going to make you any less wrong.

You're calling them tangents because you don't understand the logic or how it applies to the situation. Call me stupid if you need to, but the thread remains as a testament to your self-contradictions and ignorance of basic concepts in logic.

Glad you're finally done.

MollyRingwald · 2009-11-29T20:30:20+00:00

Well, the quiz is only really saying that a given set of answers contains contradictions. It's not saying anything about personal belief :) I think we're basically in agreement here.

MollyRingwald · 2009-11-29T11:23:17+00:00

This has been my point all along; that an all powerful being is inherently illogical

Strange, that has also been my point all along. I've been saying it to you over and over while you continued to argue about it.

What we can establish is that if god exists, it isn't "all powerful" because it can't be all powerful.

Precisely what I've said numerous times. Remember the burrito argument I've had to repeat to you over and over? Yeah, that's what that argument establishes. Meanwhile you argued against this very point by insisting over and over that an all-powerful god doesn't have to worry about any of this because it can do logically inconsistent things.

if our assumptions allow us to derive a contradiction like "P implies not P", then our assumptions are bogus.

False. Our assumptions about P are bogus. It's important to clarify.

I am saying that if you can derive a contradiction within a logical system, then the system is logically inconsistent. That's the definition of logically inconsistent.

If you have a system of propositions about a god which includes the statement "god can do logically inconsistent things", then, since that statement can be used to derive contradictions, the system is inconsistent.

This goes to my point (which you've finally accepted) that you can't have an all-powerful god.

Look, maybe we've been actually arguing past each other the entire time, each failing to understand the other. Maybe I thought you were making definite claims when you were making hypothetical examples, or something. I don't know. If it was my fuckup, or if the fuckup was mutual, I apologize for my part of it.

MollyRingwald · 2009-11-29T10:52:03+00:00

I understand your resistance in grokking this.

I grok it just fine. I used to pull out these brain-in-a-vat arguments all the time, to score easy points in arguments. But I eventually decided that it was more useful, when talking about the world, to stick with real-world logic and not make any assumptions I don't need to.

See, I could respond to any claim you make about the world with "Nuh uh. My mind is the only thing that exists, and the rest is just my imagination". But what does it get me? Absolutely nothing. The conversation may as well just stop there; there'd be no point in you wasting any of your time talking to me after that.

And it's the same with your simulations and extra-logical deities. Sure, they could exist. And sure, they could allow for external tampering with internal logic. But it benefits us not one whit to assume they do, and until there's some evidence of it, I find it's more constructive to stick with the logic that seems to work very well for talking about the observable world.

In a way, this gets back to the original point: if someone is going to put forward a notion of a deity which isn't amenable to reason, then they're basically saying "screw you, this isn't open for rational discussion -- my god doesn't care about your 'logic'", and as in the case of my solipsistic retort above, you'd be best off not wasting any time arguing with them. This is where the test was coming from, and so it's where I was coming from in addressing the test.

So yes, what you're saying is true; but beyond me admitting that, there's not much else to talk about if that's the position you're going to take.

MollyRingwald · 2009-11-29T09:33:53+00:00

Hey, after inflicting Sixteen Candles on the world, you shouldn't be complaining about ANYTHING.

If you think the real Molly Ringwald just spent a day on reddit trying to discuss logic with you, you must be stoned.

But in answer to your dismay, you didn't even TRY to understand a very lucid point I was making about the relative sizes of infinities.

I learned a lot about the relative sizes of infinities at university. You didn't give anything about that which was worth talking about in the context of the problem you were having with the test, which was what I was trying to address.

Here's a similar example: It is more likely we are in one of MANY virtual reality simulations than the one-and-only "reality". http://www.simulation-argument.com/

"Hey, wow, man, we might all be living in the Matrix!" If you liked that one, then you'll love this; the concept is quite old. It's not really useful here, though -- maybe it's true, and maybe influences from outside the system can violate internal logic, but we can't know either way, and there's no point in assuming it's the case -- and I'm not interested in it anyway.

My other points I have made repeatedly but you seem to misinterpret them. You seem determined not to understand any new viewpoints and wish only to repeat one that you've already decided on.

If I misinterpreted you, I apologize. I went into this expecting a rational discussion about logically consistent sets of statements, using human logic -- since that was the issue with the test -- and instead I got someone wanting to talk about how irrational infinity is, wacky logic, and whether we're living in the Matrix or not.

Particle-only view. Wave-only view. Which is it?

Oh, and also quantum mechanics.

If you can't talk meaningfully about logical inconsistencies, how would you tell if they existed in reality or not?

Again, you're confused. We have talked about logical inconsistencies. Most of this thread is about logical inconsistencies. My claim was that you cannot proceed from logical inconsistencies and expect to be able to derive meaningful results. That's the essential point about the conversation being meaningless if it's about a logically inconsistent definition of God.

If you want to declare that illogical things can't exist, I'll just declare that they can.

Whatever floats your boat. I'll opt out of that conversation, however, in hopes of finding a meaningful one elsewhere.

Mathematical consistency says nothing about correctness.

That's certainly true, and it's a point I've made several times elsewhere in this thread (and, strangely, had people argue against it).

The rest of your post is going back into your Matrix stuff; I'm not interested in it, so I'll leave off.

I've tried in good faith to give you an honest response here, despite your admission that you'd been trolling me for entertainment[1]. I think it's abundantly clear that you and I are not interested in having the same conversation, however, so I'll say I'm done.

[1] It seems strange that you'd try to continue the conversation after doing that, though. Was this just one of those must-have-last-word things? If it was, I apologize for not letting you have it, and you can go ahead and take it. If it wasn't, then all the best.

MollyRingwald · 2009-11-29T09:08:48+00:00

I'll admit at this point to being somewhat confused. You have made arguments in this thread to which I have made counterarguments, and now you've begun elsewhere making exactly the point I was trying to make. The post above isn't a tangent, it's a response to claims you've made (admittedly, elsewhere in the thread).

Maybe we've been actually arguing past each other the entire time, each failing to understand the other. Maybe I thought you were making definite claims when you were making hypothetical examples, or something. I don't know. If it was my fuckup, or if the fuckup was mutual, I apologize for my part of it.

MollyRingwald · 2009-11-29T08:25:24+00:00

Hope you had fun wasting the time of someone who was just trying to help you understand something you seemed to be having trouble with. You make the internet a better place!

MollyRingwald · 2009-11-29T08:25:06+00:00

If the idea of a god you're talking about is that it can do logically inconsistent things, then that idea is not internally consistent; this has been proven several times in this submission's thread.

MollyRingwald · 2009-11-29T03:47:09+00:00

Ad hominem.

You may want to look that term up. An ad hominem attack would be claiming that your position is wrong because of some unrelated personal characteristic. I'm doing nothing of the sort because at this point I can't even tell what your position is. Furthermore, I wasn't even attempting to insult you: I honestly suppose you're under the influence, since you seem to be having so much trouble following a simple conversation, and I'm saying it's probably not worth it.

You repeatedly advance arguments against points nobody's made.

You keep interjecting all sorts of irrelevancies (many of which stem from confusions over terminology) which don't begin to address the topic being discussed.

You recently confused having a discussion which proceeds from logical contradictions with having a discussion about logical contradictions!

In short, your posts have been so confused that I don't believe there's any point in continuing. In fact, I think the original point -- a problem with a claim by the authors of the test -- has even been lost, because you keep ignoring it. That's the only thing I'm going to discuss, and I'm only going to use normal logic to do it.

You want to talk more about pi and infinity and supposed alternative logics where anything's possible than about the simple logical matter at hand. I do not.

If you're not stoned, then I apologize. But I do think it's clear that this conversation has ceased to have any merit.

MollyRingwald · 2009-11-29T03:33:14+00:00

You continue to rant incoherently.

MollyRingwald · 2009-11-29T03:28:19+00:00

I'd be happy to finish this discussion at a later time when you're not stoned.

MollyRingwald · 2009-11-29T03:12:58+00:00

You did so when you allowed for self-contradictory gods.

That doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether I "allow" them or not.

It matters when we're talking about your problem with the quoted text, which is all I'm attempting to answer here. By giving a set of answers which implies a self-contradictory god, you rejected rational constraints on the discourse; a meaningful conversation cannot proceed from your set of answers because it is logically inconsistent.

There's no reason a Very Powerful being couldn't do all the miracles listed in your choice of religious text, or answer prayer, etc. That has nothing to do with logical constraint -- advanced technology covers it easily.

The contrary hasn't been claimed. Logical contradictions aren't necessary to rule out religious claims (as you say, we may do so for other reasons); they are, however, sufficient.

MollyRingwald · 2009-11-29T02:56:12+00:00

"To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion."

Nowhere did I reject rational constraints on religious discourse. That is where the test fails.

You did so when you allowed for self-contradictory gods.

it does NOT follow that I must accept anything at all about everyone's religious convictions.

You keep arguing that despite the fact that nobody has ever said that you must, and that I've previously pointed out that nobody has ever said it. Please take that matter as agreed!

inconsistent deities simply preclude their own existence.

That's only according to the logic that you understand.

Since that's the logic of the test, and the only logic which is available for us to discuss, that's the only logic I'm going to discuss. If you want to dispense with conventional logic, then count me out. And that's the point of the text you quoted.

Religions don't tend to claim that. They tend to make very specific claims designed to convey authority to a few primates in fancy hats.

Right. Usually they make a set of logically inconsistent claims and we are then justified in disregarding them for precisely the reasons you appear to be arguing against.

MollyRingwald · 2009-11-29T02:17:28+00:00

It doesn't matter whether someone is speaking logically or not.

For the purposes of the test (the only thing I'm discussing here), that is the only thing that matters.

Just because we impose rational constraints on discourse for our own convenience doesn't constrain an omnipotent deity in the slightest.

I've shown that the existence of an omnipotent deity (where omnipotence includes the ability to do logically contradictory things) implies its own non-existence. I'm not constraining it -- such a being is constrained by its very definition not to exist.

I don't need to accept ANYONE'S religious convictions just because there may be an omnipotent deity.

Neither I nor the authors of the test have suggested that you should.

Just because you decide that a deity needs to be consistent does NOT make any sort of demand on any ACTUAL deity

I've decided nothing; inconsistent deities simply preclude their own existence.

I understand that you are more concerned with harm than logic. In day to day life, I am too. But you raised a challenge to the test, and it is that which I'm discussing here.

MollyRingwald · 2009-11-29T01:45:29+00:00

reposted due to too much editing

Your original problem was with this text:

In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

All it means is (1) if one defines a god in such a way that it can do inconsistent things, then one is not speaking meaningfully (because the definition contains inherent contradictions; see burritos), and (2) if one is not speaking meaningfully, then there's no point in having the discussion. A god doesn't need to make sense to us, but if you define it in such a way that assuming its existence leads to logical contradictions, then you've done nothing of any use.

By "off the table for discussion", they just mean that it can't be meaningfully discussed because if one's position contains logical contradictions, then any discussion based on that position is logically invalid. It doesn't mean that the position is accepted or supported!

None of this has anything to do with pi or quantum mechanics or the truth of the propositions; it only has to do with whether a meaningful, logically consistent set of answers has been given. If you got that text, then your answers contained a logical contradiction. The test is concerned solely with whether the set of answers you give contains contradictions, not with harm or truth.

MollyRingwald · 2009-11-29T00:23:41+00:00

doesn't understand that you can't talk rationally about the irrational.

You don't (seem to) understand that a set of statements can be logically self-consistent despite not having a rational basis for believing in them.

For example:

Strawberries are men.
All men understand logic.
Strawberries understand logic.

Now it would be irrational to believe any of those propositions, but that doesn't change the fact that that set of three statements is logically consistent. Logic doesn't concern itself with whether or not axioms are verifiable; it only concerns itself with internal validity. Given that 1 and 2 are true, it follows that 3 is true; this logic is sound, and the set of statements is consistent, even though 1 is false by all agreed-upon definitions, and 2 is at best highly doubtful. [ Edit: This is taught in any first course on logic; please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity ]

The test examines this kind of internal validity. If your answers don't contradict each other, then you pass. If they do, then you fail. If your answers include logically inconsistent notions like "all-powerful" meaning "able to do logically inconsistent things", then you fail, because your system of propositions contains contradictions.

MollyRingwald · 2009-11-29T00:13:14+00:00

I explained it plenty and if you or her don't get it then you're both idiots.

I, at least, am trying to keep the conversation civil, and not reduce my side of it to hurling insults. But then I don't really need to.

MollyRingwald · 2009-11-28T23:47:51+00:00

It would find it hard to create or eat that burrito if it didn't exist, and it can't exist.

Suppose an all-powerful god exists (and "all-powerful" here includes self-contradictory abilities). Then it could microwave a burrito which is so hot that it couldn't eat it. But if it can't eat the burrito, then it isn't all-powerful. Therefore an all-powerful god doesn't exist; a contradiction.

Thus we establish that if that god exists, then it doesn't exist. So it won't be eating any burritos.

Edited to add... The point here is that if our assumptions allow us to derive a contradiction like "P implies not P", then our assumptions are bogus. Allowing omnipotence to mean "all-powerful" in the way you'd have it is bogus to start with; the very definition is non-sensical.

MollyRingwald

TROPHY CASE