Ah ha! You can't explain X, therefore God!

[Juma]

I've never encountered any logical objection to God or the nature of God.

If God created everything. Who created God?

 

[Underseer]

I've never encountered any logical objection to God or the nature of God.

If God created everything. Who created God?

The existence of a thing requires the existence of creator unless I say so. Then it doesn't.

 

[Underseer]

But that same reasoning could be used to claim that anything is true.

I can make something up, claim that you can't understand it, then offer any bullshit explanation and say "Here is the part you can understand," therefore my claim is true.

What would be your top 5 religions in order on your worse religions list?

I'm sorry, but I don't see how your question is related to my statement unless you are constructing an appeal to consequences fallacy.

 

[Lion IRC]

I've never encountered any logical objection to God or the nature of God.

If God created everything. Who created God?

Did someone greater than God create God?

Tell me who that being is and I will worship the Maximally Great Creator.

 

[James Brown]

It's turtles all the way up.

 

[Lion IRC]

If God created everything. Who created God?

The existence of a thing requires the existence of creator unless I say so. Then it doesn't.

You can certainly avoid the first cause argument by asserting that everything which exists has always existed.

But a past-eternal, perpetual motion universe gives rise to many 'Groundhog Day' paradoxes.
#déjàvu

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

God is only beyond logic when logic becomes inconvenient for the apologist. Any other time god is entirely logical. That's just how it be.

That sounds logical.

And saying a god is beyond logic is just a pretty way of saying a god is worse than illogical.

 

[Lion IRC]

I don't think God is beyond logic. I think He is the epitome of logic.

And if someone's apologetic isn't internally consistent then they should admit that they aren't doing proper apologetics.

IOW - if they can't (logically) answer their own doubts and uncertainties they ought not dispute with skeptics over those same issues.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't think God is beyond logic. I think He is the epitome of logic.

You must mean antithesis of logic.

And if someone's apologetic isn't internally consistent then they should admit that they aren't doing proper apologetics.

I'm listening.

IOW - if they can't (logically) answer their own doubts and uncertainties they ought not dispute with skeptics over those same issues.

?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I don't think God is beyond logic. I think He is the epitome of logic.

And if someone's apologetic isn't internally consistent then they should admit that they aren't doing proper apologetics.

IOW - if they can't (logically) answer their own doubts and uncertainties they ought not dispute with skeptics over those same issues.

Historically, when theologians have been faced with logically insurmountable problems, theologians have always abandoned logic and reason by asserting God is incomprehensible, inscrutable and beyond all understanding. This was one of Christianity's first dogmas.

Romans 11:33
[h=1][/h] ³³ O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

A lot of major theologians have admitted God does not fit well with logic by doing this, Augustine, Luther, Calvin and many others. It has long been a standart theological concept that God is beyond alll human understanding, William of Okham and many others.

If God is good, why does he allow original sin to cloud our judgment and cause evil? Logically this does not work. So, God is inscrutable. Not logical.

 

[Underseer]

The existence of a thing requires the existence of creator unless I say so. Then it doesn't.

You can certainly avoid the first cause argument by asserting that everything which exists has always existed.

But a past-eternal, perpetual motion universe gives rise to many 'Groundhog Day' paradoxes.
#déjàvu

Or you can just admit that you don't know instead of making up answers.

If your invisible friend doesn't require a creator, then neither does the universe. The thing is, we have evidence that the universe exists.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You can certainly avoid the first cause argument by asserting that everything which exists has always existed.

But a past-eternal, perpetual motion universe gives rise to many 'Groundhog Day' paradoxes.
#déjàvu

Or you can just admit that you don't know instead of making up answers.

If your invisible friend doesn't require a creator, then neither does the universe. The thing is, we have evidence that the universe exists.

There's got to be a name for that fallacy, when a standard is selectively applied and not consistently applied, when the claim is made that the rules just don't apply to my team or my player. It happens regularly with religious people and I wonder if they don't know they are doing it or are just attempting to be sly, or maybe it's just the way they think religion works, that religion is so special rules don't apply to my magic spaceman.

In any case it looks bad. You mostly see it when they use science to try to disprove science. It's weird how their minds work, like they're on some manic trip and lack self awareness.

 

[bilby]

Or you can just admit that you don't know instead of making up answers.

If your invisible friend doesn't require a creator, then neither does the universe. The thing is, we have evidence that the universe exists.

There's got to be a name for that fallacy, when a standard is selectively applied and not consistently applied, when the claim is made that the rules just don't apply to my team or my player. It happens regularly with religious people and I wonder if they don't know they are doing it or are just attempting to be sly, or maybe it's just the way they think religion works, that religion is so special rules don't apply to my magic spaceman.

In any case it looks bad. You mostly see it when they use science to try to disprove science. It's weird how their minds work, like they're on some manic trip and lack self awareness.

It's called Special Pleading.

 

[Lion IRC]

...Historically, when theologians have been faced with logically insurmountable problems, theologians have always abandoned logic and reason by asserting God is incomprehensible, inscrutable and beyond all understanding.

It's not "abandoning logic" to say I don't know.
Moreover I have never seen Christian apologetics/theology which says God is beyond ALL understanding.
Quite the opposite. General, and special revelation provide huge amounts of insight into the nature of God.

...This was one of Christianity's first dogmas.

The bible is a huge repository of knowledge about God.
Not sure why you want to quote St Paul as a supposed example of a guy who can't expound upon Gods nature.
Talk about an 'own goal'.
Paul is the opposite of what you claim about theologians.

...Romans 11:33
[h=1][/h] ³³ O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

Stating the bleeding obvious that God knows SO MUCH STUFF we are never going to know everything He knows.
His ways are informed by His omniscience.

...A lot of major theologians have admitted God does not fit well with logic by doing this, Augustine, Luther, Calvin and many others. It has long been a standart theological concept that God is beyond alll human understanding, William of Okham and many others.

Those are the very names I would turn to for informative quotes ABOUT the nature of God.
I challenge you to go one-on-one with me in a quote challenge.
For every one example of an Augustine or Aquinas or Luther quote which you claim appeals to the 'unknowable' I will match you with two examples of specific detail in theological reasoning quoted by them - which I assume you will disingenuously dismiss on the grounds that they couldn't possibly know.

You see, that's the double standard which proves you wrong.
On the one hand you assert theologians never answer specifically yet on the other hand this forum is chockablock full of examples where atheists reject fact claims about God.

...If God is good, why does he allow original sin to cloud our judgment and cause evil?

He doesn't allow sin. He punishes it.

... Logically this does not work. So, God is inscrutable. Not logical.

You're quite wrong.
God punishes sin. If He didn't - if there was no hell - THEN you would have something inconsistent to complain about.

Furthermore, you seem to be of the view that God should punish sinners BEFORE they have done anything wrong - so as to avoid the appearence of "allowing sin". How is it logical to punish Adam and Eve before the Fall?

Last I checked most strong anti-theists argue from a position that they don't WANT to be told what to do or prevented from freely choosing what they believe is and isnt a sin. So how come you accuse God of "letting" sin happen but in the next breath you rail against a celestial dictator.

 

[Lion IRC]

You can certainly avoid the first cause argument by asserting that everything which exists has always existed.

If your invisible friend doesn't require a creator, then neither does the universe....

That's what I just said.
You can avoid the uncaused first cause by arguing tha nothing ever comes into existence.

 

[Lion IRC]

There's got to be a name for that fallacy, when a standard is selectively applied and not consistently applied, when the claim is made that the rules just don't apply to my team or my player.

I wouldn't know. I have just posted that the infinite regression problem is fixed by either the non-theist or the theist by reasoning that either;
a) God never came into existence
or
b) The universe never came into existence.

The infinite regression problem doesnt asymmetrically apply ONLY to the non-theist.

 

[AJ113]

It's not "abandoning logic" to say I don't know.

Check the thread title. Theists don't say "I don't know", they say "You don't know, therefore god(s)"

Blah blah blah* god/bible/the usual equivocation/straw man etc.

Smoke screen mate. Get back to the point. Theists make a great song and dance about any gaps in our knowledge, declaring that their own particular brand of sky daddy fills those gaps. That's the point made, now please rebut it.

*Blahs technically mine, although the paraphrasing is accurate.

 

[James Brown]

I don't think God is beyond logic. I think He is the epitome of logic.

And if someone's apologetic isn't internally consistent then they should admit that they aren't doing proper apologetics.

IOW - if they can't (logically) answer their own doubts and uncertainties they ought not dispute with skeptics over those same issues.

Historically, when theologians have been faced with logically insurmountable problems, theologians have always abandoned logic and reason by asserting God is incomprehensible, inscrutable and beyond all understanding. This was one of Christianity's first dogmas.

Romans 11:33
³³ O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

A lot of major theologians have admitted God does not fit well with logic by doing this, Augustine, Luther, Calvin and many others. It has long been a standart theological concept that God is beyond alll human understanding, William of Okham and many others.

If God is good, why does he allow original sin to cloud our judgment and cause evil? Logically this does not work. So, God is inscrutable. Not logical.

Isn't an unknowable God the conclusion of Agnosticism? What's the difference between "God is undescribable" and "God is so amazing that he's undescribable"?

 

[Juma]

The bible is a huge repository of knowledge about God.

Why should we trust those that wrote the bible by their words?

That is not how science works.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There's got to be a name for that fallacy, when a standard is selectively applied and not consistently applied, when the claim is made that the rules just don't apply to my team or my player.

I wouldn't know. I have just posted that the infinite regression problem is fixed by either the non-theist or the theist by reasoning that either;
a) God never came into existence
or
b) The universe never came into existence.

The infinite regression problem doesnt asymmetrically apply ONLY to the non-theist.

You'd do well to read Bilby's link.

To the point you've made all antes must be real and of value. Writing "god" on a piece of paper and submitting that is not something I would accept.