You know this is too long and--I've said this before, somewhere--the faulty nature of debate is its negativity, whereby I only respond to that which I have some problem with. The positive side is that it considerable cuts down that which needs to be addressed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jcp
If you agree that the true nature of the universe is not known, but based on the evidence you have seen you see no evidence for God, that's one thing. To me, it seems you believe that logic leads to the TRUTH that there is no God...which is silly since we do not know the truth (and, by the way, the reason we can discuss things about this and 'agree to disagree' with neither being wrong or right.).
If you are an atheist, that's fine. I personally find atheism ridiculous, but I also recognize that I personally hold beliefs you have every right to find equally as ridiculous.
|
It's not that I don't know whether there is a God or not. It's that I don't know what is it that I'm supposed to not know about. For contrast, I know that I don't know the physics behind a black hole, but I do have a logically consistent definition of it. I don't know how it works, but when I talk about it, I know what I'm talking about because the definition remains consistent. I don't have that luxury when discussing this God term.
To me, hearing you say the emboldened portion is like hearing someone say that logic will lead me to the truth that Hickadoola doesn't exist. I need to know first what Hickadoola means before I can make any sort of assertion. If you give me a definition of Hickadoola with contradictory terms, I have no choice but to say that it can't exist, otherwise our ability to communicate breaks down entirely since our discussion can no longer be contained by the nature of reality.
Quote:
|
that God is the system of "a creator needs a creator" that is infinite and transcends creation itself.
|
Wouldn't this also mean that it transcends logic as well? Meaning that something that transcends logic can't be communicate logically; meaning that trying to come to any sort of conclusion about it logically, one would eventually have to give up logic? And how can one question without the tool of logic?