Originally posted by twhitehead
If that is what you call logic, then I suggest you don't trust your mind.

But I know that it isn't what you call logic. Its something you heard from someone else, and are just repeating without thinking it through.

So why don't you tell me why do you trust your thoughts if your brain wasn't designed to think logical thoughts?

Either your brain was designed to think logical thoughts or it wasnt. If you believe it wasn't, why do you trust your thoughts?

Originally posted by chaney3
Science cannot prove that God didn't do it.

Atheists are ignorant of modern science. Yes twitehead, you are ignorant.

Science measures things. Tangible things.
god is supposed to be immaterial so there is an argument that says science or "modern science" can't prove or disprove anything bout god

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So why don't you tell me why do you trust your thoughts if your brain wasn't designed to think logical thoughts?

Either your brain was designed to think logical thoughts or it wasnt. If you believe it wasn't, why do you trust your thoughts?

I don't trust my brain to think logical thoughts. I double check it. And it doesn't always think logical thoughts, but it does so far more often than yours does.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't trust my brain to think logical thoughts. I double check it. And it doesn't always think logical thoughts, but it does so far more often than yours does.

You double check it using a brain that you don't trust to think logical thoughts. Very logical indeed. 😛

Originally posted by chaney3
Science cannot prove that God didn't do it.

Atheists are ignorant of modern science. Yes twitehead, you are ignorant.

There is an unlimited number of things science can't prove. So?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
You double check it using a brain that you don't trust to think logical thoughts. Very logical indeed. 😛

Yes, it is logical. That you don't know this, only shows the lack of logic in your own brain.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Science measures things. Tangible things.
god is supposed to be immaterial so there is an argument that says science or "modern science" can't prove or disprove anything bout god

It is a terrible argument. There is a difference between 'tangible' and 'material'.
Science measures things that are observable. Observable means information comes from it to us. If God is unobservable, then we can know nothing about him, whether by science or otherwise. If he is observable then he can be studied by science.
Science is not so much in the proving / disproving business, and more in the 'what can we find out, and how sure are we' business.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, it is logical. That you don't know this, only shows the lack of logic in your own brain.

You check the thoughts of the brain you don't trust with the same brain whose thoughts you don't trust. Foolproof system. 😀

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
You check the thoughts of the brain you don't trust with the same brain whose thoughts you don't trust. Foolproof system. 😀

The very fact that you and I come up with different results on logical questions proves beyond any doubt that human brains in general are not always logically correct. You cannot deny this (rationally).
Therefore, your claim that you trust your brain because you believe it was designed to be logically correct is nonsensical because we have solid proof that it is not guaranteed to be logical and therefore cannot possibly have been designed to be always logical.
Sorry, but you loose this one because you didn't think it through before opening your big mouth.

🙄 🙄 🙄

That's what happens when you steal other peoples arguments without understanding them and without realising that those other people were trying to sell a religion to fools.

The reality is that if there was a foolproof argument for God, then all the more intelligent thinkers would be theists. They aren't. Therefore either there is no such argument, or it has been kept secret. The chances that you know about it but they don't is minuscule.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The very fact that you and I come up with different results on logical questions proves beyond any doubt that human brains in general are not always logically correct. You cannot deny this (rationally).
Therefore, your claim that you trust your brain because you believe it was designed to be logically correct is nonsensical because we have solid proof th ...[text shortened]... ent, or it has been kept secret. The chances that you know about it but they don't is minuscule.

The fact that we can come up with different results may be attributed to our free will. In a purely materialistic worldview where the human brain is nothing more than the summation of chemicals and brain wiring, how do you justify having both free will and rationality? How does one chemical state of the brain that is altered by the electrical firing of neurons, which leads to another chemical state in your brain, produce free thought and logical inference?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
The fact that we can come up with different results may be attributed to our free will. In a purely materialistic worldview where the human brain is nothing more than the summation of chemicals and brain wiring, how do you justify having both free will and rationality? How does one chemical state of the brain that is altered by the electrical firing of n ...[text shortened]... which leads to another chemical state in your brain, produce free thought and logical inference?

The brain was created by intelligent design. The fact that most call this 'intelligence' God causes much conflict.

Putting religion aside, it would be nice if atheists at least agreed with a 'creator', even if this creator is too profound to understand.

Originally posted by chaney3
The brain was created by intelligent design. The fact that most call this 'intelligence' God causes much conflict.

Putting religion aside, it would be nice if atheists at least agreed with a 'creator', even if this creator is too profound to understand.

The positing of characteristics as too profound to understand is what Alvin Plantinga, a theist philosopher, calls a Science Stopper.

Quote:

There is still another reason for methodological naturalism; this one too is common sense simplicity itself. God has created this whole wonderful and awful (both taken in their etymological senses) world of ours. One of the things we want to do as his creatures is to understand the world he has made, see (to the extent that we can) how it is made, what its structure is, how it works. This is not, of course, the only thing God's children must do with the world; we must also appreciate it, care for it, love it, thank the Lord for it, and see his hand in it. But understanding it is valuable, and so is understanding it in a theoretical way. One way of understanding something is to see how it is made, how it is put together, and how it works. That is what goes on in natural science. The object of this science is nature; for Christians, its aim (one of its aims) is to see what the structure of this world is and how it works; this is a way of appreciating God's creation, and part of what it is to exercise the image of God in which we have been created.
But there will be little advance along this front if, in answer to the question, "Why does so and so work the way it does?" or "What is the explanation of so and so?" we regularly and often reply "Because God did it that way" or "Because it pleased God that it should be like that." This will often62 be true, but it is not the sort of answer we want at that juncture. It goes without saying that God has in one way or another brought it about that the universe displays the character it does; but what we want to know in science are the answers to questions like "What is this made out of? What is its structure? How does it work? How is it connected with other parts of God's creation?

Unquote

https://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/methodological_naturalism_part_2.pdf

Originally posted by JS357
The positing of characteristics as too profound to understand is what Alvin Plantinga, a theist philosopher, calls a Science Stopper.

Quote:

There is still another reason for methodological naturalism; this one too is common sense simplicity itself. God has created this whole wonderful and awful (both taken in their etymological senses) world of ours. On ...[text shortened]... cademic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/methodological_naturalism_part_2.pdf

What is your point?

Originally posted by chaney3
Darwin was quoted as saying "God is too profound for humans to understand, similar to a dog contemplating Newton's law of gravity".
(Paraphrasing)

I cannot disagree.

For those who read the Bible, accept it as truth, and attempt to defend it, good for you. But I am now at a stage where I agree with Darwin's quote.

Just wanted to share that with my many friends here.

1 Corinthians 2: 11-12 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.

You attempting to figure God out, or ask God to reveal Himself?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
The fact that we can come up with different results may be attributed to our free will.

Whatever you attribute it to, it proves beyond a doubt that the human brain does not reliably reach the correct logical conclusion every time. Therefore your claim that you trust your brain because you believe it was designed to reach logical conclusions is nonsense and you know it.

In a purely materialistic worldview where the human brain is nothing more than the summation of chemicals and brain wiring, how do you justify having both free will and rationality?
How do you define free will? Most definitions I have heard are irrational.

How does one chemical state of the brain that is altered by the electrical firing of neurons, which leads to another chemical state in your brain, produce free thought and logical inference?
The same way a computer does. Its really not that hard.