• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

See OP

  • Total voters
    67
Tucker Case said:
No. A "thing" can be neither logical nor illogical. Only arguments and reasoning can be logical or illogical.

It does not mean what you are using it to mean.
Click to expand...

I'm joking around with you :D
 
paris said:
So you clearly don't understand the concept of universality either.

Why I am not surprised:)
Click to expand...

The Pirahã language's existence proves that the concepts within language are not entirely universal.

Their language is interesting because they don't have any words that describe specific numerals. Yet they still perform math. ;)

albeit very rudimentary math.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
No, God can not brake His own rules.


The test doesn't fail, the person you administer the test to can fail.

The answer, by the way, is "no".
Click to expand...


Well, technically it isn't that God cannot break his own rules, maybe he can, maybe he can't :shrug:

The thing to realize here is that if we're going to discuss God in a logical manner, and then posit that God can be illogical, it becomes an exercise in futility. God, therefore, must be a logical being if we are to seriously discuss about God. Otherwise there really is no point in discussing this. This, however, doesn't eliminate the possibility that God can break his own rules. It's just that no one should take this position seriously, if we are to do this in a logical manner.
 
Goobieman said:
If God is omnipotent, then He can defy logic.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Thats why the "can he create a rock so large He cannot lift" test fails.
Click to expand...

Actually all that test proves is that God is illogical and can engage in the nonsensical. It does not prove God cannot exist.

Can God make itself cease to exist in all forms? Yes.
Then God can make itself re-exist from complete oblivion.

Does that make ANY logical sense? No, but it is still possible within the bounds of omnipotence.
 
Lightdemon said:
Well, technically it isn't that God cannot break his own rules, maybe he can, maybe he can't :shrug:

The thing to realize here is that if we're going to discuss God in a logical manner, and then posit that God can be illogical, it becomes an exercise in futility. God, therefore, must be a logical being if we are to seriously discuss about God. Otherwise there really is no point in discussing this. This, however, doesn't eliminate the possibility that God can break his own rules. It's just that no one should take this position seriously, if we are to do this in a logical manner.
Click to expand...

While I understand your argument and I do agree, there is quite a problem in first assuming God must be logical. You basically shut off all discussion and thought to a great portion of what God could be/is.

And we must at the end of the road admit that we cannot disprove that God is an illogical being. In a sense, all discussions on such beings are ultimately futile.

Logically, if we examine omnipotence as a trait in itself, we must conclude God is illogical if it holds such a trait. Hence why most of these discussions are for fun.
 
Jerry said:
The logically possible.

If it's impossible, then it can't be don't, like a 4 sided triangle.
Click to expand...

But if a being has the power to do anything, then making a 4 sided triangle is within its grasp. Does it make any sense? No. Is it still included in the set of possible actions under "unlimited power?" Yes. Omnipotence by itself makes no sense regardless of what it is attached to.

I don't see why you think that.
Click to expand...

I don't see why you think that. Unless you define omnipotent as really limited power.
 
obvious Child said:
While I understand your argument and I do agree, there is quite a problem in first assuming God must be logical. You basically shut off all discussion and thought to a great portion of what God could be/is.

And we must at the end of the road admit that we cannot disprove that God is an illogical being. In a sense, all discussions on such beings are ultimately futile.

Logically, if we examine omnipotence as a trait in itself, we must conclude God is illogical if it holds such a trait. Hence why most of these discussions are for fun.
Click to expand...

Actually, I agree with you. I'm not assuming that God must be logical, I'm saying that if we are to discuss God logically, we can't have an illogical God. Logical discussion cannot happen because we begin with the illogical.

If we are discussing about an illogical God, then we can pretty much posit anything we want as a premise or argument. But those arguments would just be nonsense. But who knows? Nonsense might turn out to be the truth :shrug:

But for all practical reasons, we must choose to be logical rather than illogical. Excuse me while I tuck away my agnosticism. :mrgreen:
 
obvious Child said:
But if a being has the power to do anything, then making a 4 sided triangle is within its grasp. Does it make any sense? No. Is it still included in the set of possible actions under "unlimited power?" Yes. Omnipotence by itself makes no sense regardless of what it is attached to.

I don't see why you think that. Unless you define omnipotent as really limited power.
Click to expand...

Who said God could do just anything anyone thought up? There's a list of things God can not do. Since God can not do these things and is still omnipotent, we therefore know that "omnipotent" only includes the power to do what can logically be don.

Since "omnipotent" only regards what can logically be don, and God can do everything which is logically possible, God is therefore omnipotent.
 
scourge99 said:
I'm nitpicking but this could spark a good discussion.

I don't believe the following claims can be shown as true:
1) Everything that exists can be explained through math (what about emotions, conciousness, conceptualization. How would one explain these things with math?)

2) Concepts exist independent of our understanding.
(This is the ol' "if a tree falls in the woods" question. If there isn't a mind to contemplate the universe and existence then does it exist? I would argue 'yes' but I don't believe its easily supported conclusion. I think its the best answer but that doesn't make it true. Some theists have used this reasoning to argue TAG (transcendtal argument for the existence of god))
Click to expand...

In one way or another numbers, mathematical equations or formulas can be applied to define or measure anything. Perhaps not the abstract idea of what something like an emotion is, but you can definitely measure and quantify the reactions in the brain that evoke or are a result of emotions.
 
Lightdemon said:
Well, technically it isn't that God cannot break his own rules, maybe he can, maybe he can't :shrug:

The thing to realize here is that if we're going to discuss God in a logical manner, and then posit that God can be illogical, it becomes an exercise in futility. God, therefore, must be a logical being if we are to seriously discuss about God. Otherwise there really is no point in discussing this. This, however, doesn't eliminate the possibility that God can break his own rules. It's just that no one should take this position seriously, if we are to do this in a logical manner.
Click to expand...

This may be a bit far fetched, but what we are baseing the ideas of logic and logiacal manner on is what capacity of our brain we use which by the way isn't all.

No matter how high a human's I.Q. is he is not privy to all the brain's knowledge.
 
presluc said:
This may be a bit far fetched, but what we are baseing the ideas of logic and logiacal manner on is what capacity of our brain we use which by the way isn't all.

No matter how high a human's I.Q. is he is not privy to all the brain's knowledge.
Click to expand...

yeah don't we use like 10% of our brain's processing ability?
 
EpicDude86 said:
yeah don't we use like 10% of our brain's processing ability?
Click to expand...

That would be my guess.

That's kinda like having a big computer with so many firewalls you can only get so much information.
 
presluc said:
That would be my guess.

That's kinda like having a big computer with so many firewalls you can only get so much information.
Click to expand...

I always likened it to a bitchin' ass processor with a crappy 200mhz front side bus. :lol: Or perhaps we haven't installed the proper drivers...
 
presluc said:
This may be a bit far fetched, but what we are baseing the ideas of logic and logiacal manner on is what capacity of our brain we use which by the way isn't all.

No matter how high a human's I.Q. is he is not privy to all the brain's knowledge.
Click to expand...

EpicDude86 said:
yeah don't we use like 10% of our brain's processing ability?
Click to expand...


The part about using only a percentage of one's brain is a highly misinterpreted idea. Just because only a part of your brain can be used consciously doesn't mean you use your brain less.

For example, there are parts of your brain that govern your heart beat, your stomach, liver, etc. You don't consciously use that part of your brain to keep your body working (hence the 10%), but that doesn't mean you're intellectually dumber because of that. It also doesn't mean that if you can use 100% of you're smarter. It doesn't work that way.

To address your earlier point: Logic isn't based on human intellect, but on the validity of the argument. Sometimes there might not be any valid argument, thus making you take leaps of faith from time to time. Whether you jump towards the direction of theism or atheism is up to you.
 
EpicDude86 said:
I always likened it to a bitchin' ass processor with a crappy 200mhz front side bus. :lol: Or perhaps we haven't installed the proper drivers...
Click to expand...

I'll agree with that.
 
Lightdemon said:
The part about using only a percentage of one's brain is a highly misinterpreted idea. Just because only a part of your brain can be used consciously doesn't mean you use your brain less.

For example, there are parts of your brain that govern your heart beat, your stomach, liver, etc. You don't consciously use that part of your brain to keep your body working (hence the 10%), but that doesn't mean you're intellectually dumber because of that. It also doesn't mean that if you can use 100% of you're smarter. It doesn't work that way.

To address your earlier point: Logic isn't based on human intellect, but on the validity of the argument. Sometimes there might not be any valid argument, thus making you take leaps of faith from time to time. Whether you jump towards the direction of theism or atheism is up to you.
Click to expand...

Well, first of all I think what you are refering to is involuntary response heart beat,liver ect..
In short the brain funtions automaticly in these areas.

As far as logic being based on human intellect that would depend on the human's I.Q. wouldn't it?

Since no human usese all of the brain how can we as humans know if we would be dumber or smarter, we might even have more logic and as humans stop killing each other over something that might be illogical.
 
presluc said:
Since no human usese all of the brain how can we as humans know if we would be dumber or smarter, we might even have more logic and as humans stop killing each other over something that might be illogical.
Click to expand...

We do use all of their brain, 100% of it. We just don't use our brain consciously. We only consciously control about 10% of it.

The misinterpreted idea that I was explaining to you earlier is that you're not supposed to consciously use your brain 100% of time. Think about it. If you were consciously controlling your brain, your liver, your sweat glands, your body temperature, etc etc etc, don't you think that would be A LOT to think about and control? You would have no time to think about other things. That is why you do not consciously control 90% of your brain.

Also consider this, if you were able to control your heart beat, your liver, your sweat glands, etc etc, does that make you smarter? No. It just makes you work harder to keep your body in equilibrium, which will likely make you dumber because you have less time to form ideas and actually think.

As far as logic being based on human intellect that would depend on the human's I.Q. wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't. As I said, logic is based on the validity of the argument. A person dumb as a door nail that says 1 + 1 = 2 is correct, it's also correct if a person with an IQ of 200 said the same thing. Logic isn't based on intellect.
 
Last edited:
Lightdemon said:
We do use all of their brain, 100% of it. We just don't use our brain consciously. We only consciously control about 10% of it.

The misinterpreted idea that I was explaining to you earlier is that you're not supposed to consciously use your brain 100% of time. Think about it. If you were consciously controlling your brain, your liver, your sweat glands, your body temperature, etc etc etc, don't you think that would be A LOT to think about and control? You would have no time to think about other things. That is why you do not consciously control 90% of your brain.

Also consider this, if you were able to control your heart beat, your liver, your sweat glands, etc etc, does that make you smarter? No. It just makes you work harder to keep your body in equilibrium, which will likely make you dumber because you have less time to form ideas and actually think.



No, it wouldn't. As I said, logic is based on the validity of the argument. A person dumb as a door nail that says 1 + 1 = 2 is correct, it's also correct if a person with an IQ of 200 said the same thing. Logic isn't based on intellect.
Click to expand...

Although your responce may be true and your argument may be valid.

You are overlooking one thing the unknown factor.

If we as humans could use a 100% of our brains copasity you don't know cause fact it's never been done.

As far as the conscious relm if we were to use just a little more of the brain perhaps we would have more conscious again the unknown factor.

If the human race has the arogance to actually beleive this is all there is to know, well one might as well put evolution on hold.
 
presluc said:
Although your responce may be true and your argument may be valid.

You are overlooking one thing the unknown factor.
Click to expand...

What "unknown" are you talking about? What I've told you, in the last couple of posts, is well known among those with an educational background in psychology.

If we as humans could use a 100% of our brains copasity you don't know cause fact it's never been done.
Click to expand...

We DO use 100% of our brains. It's working all the time. Whether you are controlling it or not.

You're not understanding what I'm telling you. The brain's function is not limited to allow one to think. There is so many more things that the brain does that does not involve thinking. Most of the functions of the brain are automatic, instinctual, habitualized (or familiarized). That's why psychologists say that we only use 10% of our brains. BECAUSE we only need 10% of our brain to think, form ideas. The rest of the brain's function is not needed for thinking.

Do you now understand the misinterpretation of the saying "People only use 10% of their brains"?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom