God's law

2011-07-08 09:56:08

#1

Superior Mind: (not macbeth); +1,755|6932

Today, driving home through Brooklyn, I picked up a hitch-hiker. He was an older Hebrew gentleman named Sam and he was a Mohel. I started talking to him about his work. When I asked why we (Jews) have a circumcision he responded with something like "we do it because God says to do so." I soon realized that any point I may bring up against circumcision would only be refuted with the God's law argument.

I found myself a bit frozen. I didn't know how to react to someone who is a strict believer in the word of the Torah. Perhaps my reaction was due to the fact that I didn't want to offend Sam. After dropping him off on New Utrecht Ave, I began to wonder if logical debate and religious debate should be separated entirely. Clearly those two realms always conflict with each other.

Thoughts?

x

2011-07-08 10:00:40

#2

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5941|College Park, MD

It's like Russell's Teapot.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Like arguing about the existence of a god, it's all just conjecture. I don't have proof that he doesn't exist and Sam doesn't have proof that he does exist. Considering the whole thing about false prophets and all that, you'd have to assume that nobody can say for sure why god requires circumcision. It'd all be "well, maybe because god thinks this" or "no, of course not, it's obviously because god thinks that."

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2011-07-08 10:03:52

#3

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5499|foggy bottom

im an atheist

Tu Stultus Es

2011-07-08 10:07:49

#4

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

about 800 years of philosophy was committed to making rational and logical proofs of god and religion.

some of it is alright... some of it is bizarre ontological sorcery.

but as towards your topic's question... "clearly those realms always conflict". nope, they don't.

your problem isn't with logic + metaphysics (i.e. spirituality, anything above straight materialism), it's with narrowmindedness and ignorance.

ignorance is bliss for your friend sam, who apparently doesn't like asking questions all that much.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-07-08 15:10:36

#5

Superior Mind: (not macbeth); +1,755|6932

Right, I should have been more clear in my wording.

I really wonder if this is a matter of ignorance. Isnt Believing in a god different from believing in the mathematics behind the observable cosmos? Since as young as I can remember I have never believed that God was real. I wasn't a cynic or proclaimed atheist. I still underwent some religious schooling, I just never felt any godly prescence in my mind or body. I always knew that the religious texts I was meant to learn from were full of fables and myth. Even though the rabbis tried to indoctrinate me, it never worked. Perhaps it was because the rest if my family was so flip about religion. My dad is an atheist, as was his dad, as was was his dad. But I didn't really know all of that until later in my life.

Religious zealots don't offend me, they intrigue me. Because maybe they feel something I do not. Some cosmic warmth.

x

2011-07-08 15:17:10

#6

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6795

Sup, you could have proceeded with arguments against what he was saying but what would have been the point? Argue with him to the point of him conceding the supremacy of logic/rationality/empiricism? He's happy with his own perception of reality and, like you, I would have let it be. In any case, he would have stuck to his guns to the last. I have intelligent worldy friends who are happy not to question things upon which their beliefs are based. If it makes them happy then why should they question it?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2011-07-08 15:24:45)

2011-07-08 15:34:38

#7

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6685|The Land of Scott Walker

Superior Mind wrote:
I really wonder if this is a matter of ignorance. Isnt Believing in a god different from believing in the mathematics behind the observable cosmos?

If one believes in God, the two are actually complimentary to one another rather than exclusive. The creator of the universe also created the rules by which it functions.

2011-07-08 17:05:55

#8

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6392|what

Stingray24 wrote:
Superior Mind wrote:
I really wonder if this is a matter of ignorance. Isnt Believing in a god different from believing in the mathematics behind the observable cosmos?
If one believes in God, the two are actually complimentary to one another rather than exclusive. The creator of the universe also created the rules by which it functions.

Circular logic right there.

Who created God?

2011-07-08 17:24:43

#9

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6685|The Land of Scott Walker

This is not a debate of whether or not God exists. Please re-read the OP.

2011-07-08 17:26:52

#10

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6392|what

You argued that the two are complimentary. They are not.

"The creator of the universe also created the rules by which it functions."

Is circular logic. What laws were needed for God to exist? Where did God come from?

It's circular logic. Your answer will undoubtedly be that "God has always existed." Rather than a just as easy example "the laws of the universe have always existed."

2011-07-08 17:29:29

#11

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6685|The Land of Scott Walker

They are not complimentary in your view, but we're not talking about your views. We're discussion how a religious person may view the world, not debating the existence or non-existence of God.

2011-07-08 17:30:57

#12

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6392|what

Stingray24 wrote:
They are not complimentary in your view, but we're not talking about your views. We're discussion how a religious person may view the world, not debating the existence or non-existence of God.

Exactly. And a religious person views the world with circular logic because they don't think critcially.

2011-07-08 17:38:50

#13

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6685|The Land of Scott Walker

We are simply discussing viewpoints, not debating their validity of one side or the other. Make another thread if you want to insult religious folks ... again.

2011-07-08 17:48:45

#14

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX

Trying to argue with someone who has been indoctrinated from birth in fruitcakery is utterly futile.
The just don't have the thought processes to engage with.

Fuck Israel

2011-07-08 17:54:11

#15

RTHKI: mmmf mmmf mmmf; +1,741|6977|Cinncinatti

funny, thats what i think when i see your posts

2011-07-08 17:56:34

#16

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5598|London, England

Stingray24 wrote:
Superior Mind wrote:
I really wonder if this is a matter of ignorance. Isnt Believing in a god different from believing in the mathematics behind the observable cosmos?
If one believes in God, the two are actually complimentary to one another rather than exclusive. The creator of the universe also created the rules by which it functions.

I like this way of thinking. You get to maintain your belief while accepting reality. I will never argue with such a believer.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-07-08 17:58:49

#17

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5598|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
Trying to argue with someone who has been indoctrinated from birth in fruitcakery is utterly futile.
The just don't have the thought processes to engage with.

Your viewpoint is equally as absurd. Prove there is no god. You can't. Your belief is faith based, just like theirs.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-07-08 18:08:59

#18

mikkel: Member; +383|6841

Stingray24 wrote:
Superior Mind wrote:
I really wonder if this is a matter of ignorance. Isnt Believing in a god different from believing in the mathematics behind the observable cosmos?
If one believes in God, the two are actually complimentary to one another rather than exclusive. The creator of the universe also created the rules by which it functions.

I'd argue that they aren't complementary at all. For the two to coexist, any scientific theory that is thought to apply universally must be considered a universal constant only within existence as explained theologically. The condition of coexistence is unidirectional precedence. That's subservient, not complementary.

2011-07-08 18:44:27

#19

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6392|what

Jay wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Trying to argue with someone who has been indoctrinated from birth in fruitcakery is utterly futile.
The just don't have the thought processes to engage with.
Your viewpoint is equally as absurd. Prove there is no god. You can't. Your belief is faith based, just like theirs.

Russels Teapot. As per hurricanes post, second in this thread...

And his belief isn't based on faith, but evidence. You don't need faith gravity works to believe in it, when you have evidence with repeatable experiments to prove it.

Last edited by AussieReaper (2011-07-08 18:45:54)

2011-07-08 19:18:25

#20

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5598|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:
Jay wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Trying to argue with someone who has been indoctrinated from birth in fruitcakery is utterly futile.
The just don't have the thought processes to engage with.
Your viewpoint is equally as absurd. Prove there is no god. You can't. Your belief is faith based, just like theirs.
Russels Teapot. As per hurricanes post, second in this thread...

And his belief isn't based on faith, but evidence. You don't need faith gravity works to believe in it, when you have evidence with repeatable experiments to prove it.

No, but he can look at gravity and think of it as part of his gods plan. Same for the big bang. If someone looks at evolution and chalks up that process to his deities plan I'm perfectly ok with it.

I just cant stand creationist types that think science is their enemy. Science neither proves nor disproves the presence of a deity. That's not its purpose. The sooner both sides stop trying to wield it as a weapon in their perpetual argument the better off we'll all be.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-07-08 19:29:59

#21

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

AussieReaper wrote:
You argued that the two are complimentary. They are not.

"The creator of the universe also created the rules by which it functions."

Is circular logic. What laws were needed for God to exist? Where did God come from?

It's circular logic. Your answer will undoubtedly be that "God has always existed." Rather than a just as easy example "the laws of the universe have always existed."

aussie a long line of philosophers all disagree with your argument. the metaphysics of a 'god' or 'whole' or 'absolute' have been well-stated in logic... from very basic ontological proofs for god (st. anselm) through to kant and then hegel with his own absolutes. god is an interchangeable metaphysical conceit and doesn't necessarily mean 'blind adherence to organised religion or faith'. maybe if the argument is a little more clear we can steer away from the 'is religion illogical?' route... because religion can be argued for by ways of analytic, a priori, synthetic and deductive means.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-07-08 19:35:55

#22

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6914|Canberra, AUS

Aussie the question "who created God" is a pointless one if you take the standard assumption that God exists "outside" of time. In which case questions of causality and whatnot become utterly meaningless.

Jay is correct. God, in the way it's normally defined, is fundamentally outside the realm of mathematical or scientific proof. Just stop worrying about it.

Last edited by Spark (2011-07-08 19:36:43)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-07-08 19:38:39

#23

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

but it is, most importantly (to the OP's original statement) provable, in some senses, in logic / metaphysics / rhetoric.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-07-08 19:39:46

#24

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6914|Canberra, AUS

Uzique wrote:
but it is, most importantly (to the OP's original statement) provable, in some senses, in logic / metaphysics / rhetoric.

Obviously that's a much looser restriction that scientific or even mathematical proof though.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-07-08 19:40:32

#25

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5598|London, England

Spark wrote:
Aussie the question "who created God" is a pointless one if you take the standard assumption that God exists "outside" of time. In which case questions of causality and whatnot become utterly meaningless.

Jay is correct. God, in the way it's normally defined, is fundamentally outside the realm of mathematical or scientific proof. Just stop worrying about it.

Which is precisely why I don't give it any thought

Is there anything more pointless than theological discussions? Arguing over American Idol would be more satisfying

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

BF2S Forums God's law

Superior Mind wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Superior Mind wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Superior Mind wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Superior Mind wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Spark wrote:

Board footer