Some aspects I love about the Christian religion

[karlhenning]

Now that's a logical fallacy.

Not merely alogical fallacy, but one of the most theologically confused remarks to be found on this thread 

[aquablob]

INVISIBLE SPACE-FLOATING ANDROMEDAN BANANA SIGHTING!!!

See it?

[Florestan]

Now that's a logical fallacy. Can you not see that you're using completely circular reasoning?

Not merely alogical fallacy, but one of the most theologically confused remarks to be found on this thread 

Neither so logically flawed, nor so theologically unsound as it might appear at first glance. Think Jesus Christ  and St. Athanasius of Alexandria's apt comment: God became man so that man might become God.

I think your argument is fallacious. The object of our discussion is not bananas proper, but undetectable bananas floating in space, which is a completely different entity.

I never said that, nor did Florestan. All i did is explain why one is more likely to be believed in then the other. Imagine you are scientist who's job is to explain a particular natural phenomena. On one side, you have an hypothesis, which might explain the phenomena but is ultimately untestable, and on the other you have an undetectable flying spaghetti monster roaming the streets of New York. Which one are you more likely to consider, in relation to the natural phenomena you were studying to begin with?

I'm in complete agreement with JdP's above comments.

One question still remains, though: do anyone here mean to present this whole floating-banana intellectual game as serious evidence against the probability of God's existence?

[Wanderer]

Is the banana merely invisible in optical wavelengths or undetectable in the whole electromagnetic spectrum? This thread is getting more ridiculous by the post. Anyone can utter absurdities but, considering they come from music lovers, the lack of imagination revealed here is shocking. 

[aquablob]

One question still remains, though: do anyone here mean to present this whole floating-banana intellectual game as serious evidence against the probability of God's existence?

Not exactly. The point of the comparison is that, from the perspective of one who does not by default believe in the existence of either (and leaving "faith" out of the picture completely), there is an equal lack of evidence for the existence of both.

The comparison does not mean that the hypotheses are equally ridiculous; my intention was not to belittle the theist's stance, but rather to better explain the non-theist's position regarding the logical absurdity of presuming the existence of something for which there is no evidence. We wouldn't presume, by default, that the invisible space-floating Andromedan banana exists. My point, at least, is that I don't think the theist's position is grounded in logic, but rather "faith" (a different matter altogether — one that I find far less objectionable, despite my inability to relate to it on a personal level).

It's not about showing that the probability of God's existence is low; it's about showing that there's no logical reason to presume that the probability is high, and that therefore — again, leaving "faith" out of the picture — the non-theist's position is logical (though by no means necessarily correct!).

--With love and respect

[aquablob]

Is the banana merely invisible in optical wavelengths or undetectable in the whole electromagnetic spectrum?

It's a dark matter banana. Duh!

This thread is getting more ridiculous by the post.

(My fault.)

Anyone can utter absurdities but, considering they come from music lovers, the lack of imagination revealed here is shocking. 

Hey!!! I'd be insulted if I didn't believe in the imaginativeness of my Andromedan banana with every fiber of my being!

[bhodges]

Is the banana merely invisible in optical wavelengths or undetectable in the whole electromagnetic spectrum?

My vote for Query of the Week. 

--Bruce

[Benji]

Hey!!! I'd be insulted if I didn't believe in the imaginativeness of my Andromedan banana with every fiber of my being!

Well you were made in its very own image after all...

[Josquin des Prez]

Fools. The real question is: does the banana dance?

[drogulus]

     The reason the god is believed more often than the banana is a historical contingency, though if you look under the hood there are reasons for how such contingent historical paths get established. Gods developed out of the common anthropomorphizing of forces into sentient beings. Bananas or other vegetative entities aren't as impressive as a panther god or a fertility god for the whole harvest. Individual fruits and vegetables are too narrow for that. You want to personify the whole process of bringing all the bounty of nature so you can propitiate it to avoid disaster.

     In time the nature god becomes more abstract and forces of nature are replaced by ethical imperatives (wisdom is displaced onto a god that is more concerned about how good we are). For a wandering tribe a god might be a talking whirlwind, for an agricultural kingdom a god is a super king. For philosophers the god is a personification of reason itself, a first cause. You get the god you want because you don't have refer back to anything other than a surprisingly malleable tradition.

     So, a quality-less god that has been many things and evicted from many understandings is more likely to appear god-like than an exo-banana. This is where quality-lessness is an advantage. Whatever you imagine a god to be must be more likely than a damn banana! The bananas possession of physical properties counts against it. It's too.....real!

[Bu]

Not exactly. The point of the comparison is that, from the perspective of one who does not by default believe in the existence of either (and leaving "faith" out of the picture completely), there is an equal lack of evidence for the existence of both.

The comparison does not mean that the hypotheses are equally ridiculous; my intention was not to belittle the theist's stance, but rather to better explain the non-theist's position regarding the logical absurdity of presuming the existence of something for which there is no evidence. We wouldn't presume, by default, that the invisible space-floating Andromedan banana exists. My point, at least, is that I don't think the theist's position is grounded in logic, but rather "faith" (a different matter altogether — one that I find far less objectionable, despite my inability to relate to it on a personal level).

It's not about showing that the probability of God's existence is low; it's about showing that there's no logical reason to presume that the probability is high, and that therefore — again, leaving "faith" out of the picture — the non-theist's position is logical (though by no means necessarily correct!).

--With love and respect

Let me first say that you're a very kind and good person.

Ok, maybe a belief in God isn't quite as logical and rational as compared to an atheist's/agnostic's unbelief for the reasons you enumerated, but shouldn't a definition of God attempt to be logical and reasonable?  Doesn't this rational process prevent believers from accepting something like a "invisible space-floating Andromedan banana"?  I know others here have stated that completely defining any God is impossible due to him being beyond description and hence ineffable, incomprehensible.  This I can certainly admit to in totality, but from a human standpoint--and as people of faith, who believe in a creator God and, perhaps, also believe that He's revealed himself to his creation--using our logic and reasoning to try and define/explain what we accept, won't this rule out something ridiculous like the banana? 

Oh, about to post this and see drogulus beat me to it..................

[aquablob]

Let me first say that you're a very kind and good person.

Nah — just polite. But thank you, and I gather the same of you from your posts.

Ok, maybe a belief in God isn't quite as logical and rational as compared to an atheist's/agnostic's unbelief for the reasons you enumerated, but shouldn't a definition of God attempt to be logical and reasonable?  Doesn't this rational process prevent believers from accepting something like a "invisible space-floating Andromedan banana"?  I know others here have stated that completely defining any God is impossible due to him being beyond description and hence ineffable, incomprehensible.  This I can certainly admit to in totality, but from a human standpoint--and as people of faith, who believe in a creator God and, perhaps, also believe that He's revealed himself to his creation--using our logic and reasoning to try and define/explain what we accept, won't this rule out something ridiculous like the banana? 

I do agree that a definition of God should attempt to be logical and reasonable (even if only so that we may converse meaningfully on the topic!).

I put in bold a part of your post that I think gets to the heart of the matter. If I understand you correctly, God's existence ("what we accept") is assumed before "logic and reasoning" are applied "to try and define/explain" it. My quibble is that, even if one cannot find fault in said "logic and reasoning," they are based on taking God's existence as a given. Isn't that the "faith" part?

[drogulus]

    Why are people concerned about the logical status of god propositions? You can avoid the logical objections by removing omnipotence and omniscience. Since you can add or subtract anything just get rid of them. Leaving theses pseudo-properties in just moves god propositions beyond reason which satisfies one god constituency (a god is beyond reason) at the expense of the other (a god is logical and in fact necessary). Having it both ways just confuses things. The god that reason arguably forbids isn't the same as the logically necessary one unless only conclusions matter and arguments are for show, to give each the meat he likes best. The Diner is too principled for that.  _0:)

    So logical arguments can forbid the forbidden ones and then the question is kicked downstairs and becomes empirical. Physical possibility and questions of evidence and standards replace logical possibility for these lesser versions. A possible god with limited power and knowledge won't make everyone happy, it might be supposed, since questions could be raised about the limits of benevolence as well as competence. We'll never really get to that point, but would you want to? So I guess that answers the question for me. A god that raises logical rather than more immediate questions is no threat to anyone. 

[Bu]

Nah — just polite. But thank you, and I gather the same of you from your posts.

I do agree that a definition of God should attempt to be logical and reasonable (even if only so that we may converse meaningfully on the topic!).

I put in bold a part of your post that I think gets to the heart of the matter. If I understand you correctly, God's existence ("what we accept") is assumed before "logic and reasoning" are applied "to try and define/explain" it. My quibble is that, even if one cannot find fault in said "logic and reasoning," they are based on taking God's existence as a given. Isn't that the "faith" part?

Thank you for the kind words, my friend.

Hmmmm....that seems to be the case, from how you put it there. I think that some kind of previous reasoning has had to have taken place in order to arrive at faith in God and we're simply believing in something that we haven't fully understood and reasoned out properly (a method also applied outside of religion, imo). Or maybe faith requires that kind of blind leap into a kind of unknown, where at first you don't see clearly, but later understand more and more as you think and meditate about it.  In either process, you're still forced to examine and reason about what you're believing, and it doesn't safeguard against unbelief from forming, either.

But, here we're kind of excluding any notion of divine revelation. If God has placed any concept or idea of his existence in our hearts, as certain religions claim he does, then maybe He is accepted as a kind of "given" by people of faith, and from this non-discursive foundation arises any subsequent definition or explorations into his nature that attempt to be logical (a little ironic, I suppose). 

[aquablob]

Thank you for the kind words, my friend.

Hmmmm....that seems to be the case, from how you put it there. I think that some kind of previous reasoning has had to have taken place in order to arrive at faith in God and we're simply believing in something that we haven't fully understood and reasoned out properly (a method also applied outside of religion, imo). Or maybe faith requires that kind of blind leap into a kind of unknown, where at first you don't see clearly, but later understand more and more as you think and meditate about it.  In either process, you're still forced to examine and reason about what you're believing, and it doesn't safeguard against unbelief from forming, either.

But, here we're kind of excluding any notion of divine revelation. If God has placed any concept or idea of his existence in our hearts, as certain religions claim he does, then maybe He is accepted as a kind of "given" by people of faith, and from this non-discursive foundation arises any subsequent definition or explorations into his nature that attempt to be logical (a little ironic, I suppose). 

You've said nothing here that I disagree with.

[Bu]

You've said nothing here that I disagree with.

Excellent!   

Now I'm just wondering about Drogulus............  

[Florestan]

Not exactly. The point of the comparison is that, from the perspective of one who does not by default believe in the existence of either (and leaving "faith" out of the picture completely), there is an equal lack of evidence for the existence of both.

My point, at least, is that I don't think the theist's position is grounded in logic, but rather "faith" (a different matter altogether — one that I find far less objectionable, despite my inability to relate to it on a personal level).

I agree and the highlighted lines are the crux of the matter. After all, faith --- and I'm talking specifically about the Christian faith --- is neither science nor logic, it's just that, faith. The God of the scientists and philosophers (as Pascal very aptly put it), the impersonal first cause, prime mover, the great watchmaker, the grand architect of the universe, Brahman, Tao etc, could be conceived of even as a scientific hypothesis; but the personal God of Moses, Abraham and Jacob, the flesh-and-bone God Jesus Christ --- this is a scandal for reason and a matter of pure faith.

Now, if the existence of God could be proved with mathematical certainty, the whole meaning of faith would crumble as a playing-cards castle, because faith (or lack thereof) is related to free will. I remember Kierkegaard writing something to the effect that, had God chosen to incarnate as a giant red parrot (note, as a related aside,  the striking similarity with the flying spaghetti monster...) everybody would have been compelled to believe, thus annihilating free will.

One more relevant literary example and I'm done. When Don Quijote asks some merchants in an inn to recognize that Dulcineea of Toboso is the most beautiful woman on Earth, they retort to the effect that, were they to see her, they'd gladly acknowledge that if it is indeed the case. To which the Knight of the Sad Countenance gives a sublime reply (quoted from memory) : "If you'd see her, what merit would you have in acknowledging a most obvious fact?"

--With love and respect

Thank you, I gladly reciprocate. It's a pleasure to have you as a discussion partner.

[Florestan]

    Leaving theses pseudo-properties in just moves god propositions beyond reason which satisfies one god constituency (a god is beyond reason) at the expense of the other (a god is logical and in fact necessary). Having it both ways just confuses things.

Nobody here said God was beyond reason. If you mean that human reason cannot grasp God in all His complexity, that is a different matter altogether, as our good friend Aquariuswb would say.

Calculus is far beyond a child's reason (incomprehensible for him, actually) yet it is both logical and necessary.

[Florestan]

But, here we're kind of excluding any notion of divine revelation.

Excellent observation.

[orbital]

Nobody here said God was beyond reason. If you mean that human reason cannot grasp God in all His complexity, that is a different matter altogether, as our good friend Aquariuswb would say.

I didn't get that  Aren't they the same thing? Or are you saying human reason may evolve one day to grasp God in all its complexity (and thus rendering it useless  )

Calculus is far beyond a child's reason (incomprehensible for him, actually) yet it is both logical and necessary.

Yes, but you are saying that while standing on a higher ground. When it comes to God, is there such a place?