Has anyone here changed their opinion on God?

[RJT]

This does not really answer your question, more of a comment. One thing I have noticed on the forum (and was surprising to me) is the amount of passion many agnostics/atheist have expressed in their “belief” (stance?, not sure of the proper word) on the forum. Almost like zealots evangelizing. Interesting, I thought.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that anything that isn't logically impossible could possibly be true.


[/ QUOTE ]

I love this platonist approach to logic.
So Logic is not just a context dependent tool then?
It exists as a thing in itself?
Is it perhaps a God?

If Christian then goto First Commandment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Logical statements are true because of the meanings of the concepts within the statements.

Logic adds nothing (in a sense is nothing) which is why its silly to disagree with logical statements.

Nothing to do with god.

chez

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
Logical statements are true because of the meanings of the concepts within the statements....
Logic adds nothing

[/ QUOTE ]

The various truth functional formal deduction systems such as propositional or predicate calculus should serve to show that a deductive framework effectively defines both 'logical truth' and 'proof' in a context dependent way.
Inference rules, and the semantics of the system are perhaps relevant.
The deductive system applied does more than just add something, it defines the terms.


Turning models into God is heretical. Confusing them with strange ideas about objective reality is a Platonist approach some scientists object to.

"Atoms are not things" Heisenberg.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Logical statements are true because of the meanings of the concepts within the statements....
Logic adds nothing

[/ QUOTE ]

The various truth functional formal deduction systems such as propositional or predicate calculus should serve to show that a deductive framework effectively defines both 'logical truth' and 'proof' in a context dependent way.

The deductive system applied does more than just add something, it defines the terms.


Turning models into God is heretical. Confusing them with strange ideas about objective reality is a Platonist approach some scientists object to.

"Atoms are not things" Heisenberg.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't. If you believe the bible is true then you believe the statements in the bible are true.

The logic is undeniable but it hasn't added anything. It's just made explicit what it means to believe the bible is true.

Look again at my original statement.
'something isn't logically impossible' means that there is no method of proving it isn't true. Hence it is not impossible. Hence it is possible. Hence anyone who believes it isn't possible is not being rational and requires a leap of faith.

Again the logic has added nothing. No extra objects in Platonic heaven, nothing!

chez

[malorum]

Wether or not something is "logically impossible" within a given deductive framework, depends upon the inference rules, and the semantics of the system applied.


The semantics serve to define 'truth' in a logical sense.

Q. Is a square circle 'logically' possible.
A. It depends on the definitions to which, and the framework within which the labels are applied.

This is were I part ways with the theology of CS Lewis.

For example the deductive framework applied by orthodox lutheran theologians suggests that human logic is fallen, and that it should only be used ministerially rather than magisterially.
In its application it means that if inference rules such as modus ponens etc. highlight 'apparent' contradictions in the 'truth' statements of the bible, then this can not be used to assess the truth of those statements.
The theological deductive system discussed, defines truth primarily upon the basis of the axiomatic innerancy, veracity and historicity of the Bible. In this particular system even basic inference rules can be dissaplied if appropriate (see for example the lutheran response to Calvin's double predestination). This deductive system thus has a set of conditional inference rules, which make it different to the kind of system we are used to.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Q. Is a square circle 'logically' possible.
A. It depends on the definitions to which, and the framework within which the labels are applied.


[/ QUOTE ]

It just depends on what you mean by circle and square. I'm not really sure what else you mean.

chez

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
'something isn't logically impossible' means that there is no method of proving it isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a cat in that box over there?

Interesting definition. I'm sure sure I can devise system with inference rules and semantics that define 'prove' in an appropriate way.

[ QUOTE ]
Hence it is not impossible. Hence it is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

~(~A)=>A


All things are either possible or impossible?
Are we talking synthetic are analytic?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
'something isn't logically impossible' means that there is no method of proving it isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a cat in that box over there?

Interesting definition. I'm sure sure I can devise system with inference rules and semantics that define 'prove' in an appropriate way.

[ QUOTE ]
Hence it is not impossible. Hence it is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

~(~A)=>A


All things are either possible or impossible?
Are we talking synthetic are analytic?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not making definitions. When I say something isn't impossible, I mean that its possible.

If you thought I was making definitions then I understand your point, but I'm not.

chez

I haven't really changed my opinion on god. But, this forum has reconfirmed(for me) the futility of discussing god with 95% of people.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I used to think god didn't exist. Now I know he doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congrats on your 1000th post.

Mack