Do you have a counter to the OP argument that can overcome my claim that the universe has always existed because that's simply a property of the universe (in order to resolve the inifinite regress), or, like Aaron, do you offer that you views are illogical and god can't be proven logically?

Yes it does. But the difference between us is that if I realised that I were wrong, and that the argument is invalid, I would abandon it, or back off from it and try to repair it. Consciously holding an illogical belief is intellectually dishonest. If your reasoning on god is illogical, you should abandon it. Poeple may not be knowledgable about logic, they may be illogical, but that doesn't change that every single instance of their reasoning is subject to logic.

Kinda like you admitting that your god beliefs are illogical and then refusing multiple requests to explain how you knowingly hold an illogical belief. That's is not going to go away Aaron. And I'm genuinely curious about how you rationalise your belief system, oh wait, you can't rationalise it, ok then, I'm genuinely curious about how you justify it, oh no wait, then it would have to be 'reasonable' and that would require 'sound' judgement... I'm struggling to find a word here Aaron, help me out. What is the word that describes how you live with your knowingly illogical beliefs?


You think your God is eternal, if you can show that this isn't special pleading then please do so.

This is an example of the nonsense that I've been letting slide because I try not to criticise you personally, but I wrote an entrie sentence listing problems with our psychology and you either didn't read it, or you're pretending that I didn't say it. It was the post where I pointed out all the times I've offered those things as explanations for religious beliefs, which you've now agreed to, interesting, after all those years of arguing with me about it. Then you go right ahead and admit it.

Tell me more about reading skills and honesty?

Or, an aternative fact for you à la Conway... it might surprise you Aaron but not everyone forms beliefs based on formal logic. I believe that argument and I don't actually care if it's illogical. If it's actually invalid I'm going to believe it anyway even if I know it has to conform to laws of logic that apply whether I ignore them or not. So your 'you suck at logic' claim is pointless, it doesn't matter if it's true because I don't care about logic (oops, that's a logical conclusion but whotevs...)

Oh boy, the fun has only just started on this 'I know I'm illogical' admission by you.

LOL. And the evidence of your posting over the last 6-7 years proves this... right? I'm sure that if we pick a random thread that you participated in, we should expect that you will have conceded the point?

Do you want to know what *real* intellectual honesty looks like? If your argument is proved invalid, it opens you up to changing your beliefs. It doesn't mean that you do or don't. It means you're open to understanding flaws and weaknesses.

That's not really what you do. You hold beliefs regardless of the success or failure of your arguments, and use argument to prove yourself right rather than as a tool to understand the ways you might be wrong.

Remember this?

The truth is you haven't taken it to heart. You're still the same you that you've always been. You pay lip service to things, but you still make the same errors that you've always made.

I believe that black ballpoint pen looks better than blue ballpoint pen. There's no logic to it. But I'm aware of my preference and admit it. Tell me about intellectual dishonesty.

There are people who hold irrational fears of things like dogs and spiders. They acknowledge that it's irrational. But it affects them anyway. You should tell all those people about their intellectual dishonesty.

Or maybe you're just dumb and have no clue what intellectual honesty really is. I mean, you had a chance to demonstrate some when you claimed you never criticized me, and then when shown where you criticized me, you could have actually admitted that you did. But rather, you continued down your path by deflecting it. Because... really... what good is the written record, anyway?

You clearly lack both.

The psychology goes deeper than you think. Once again, you're going to pretend you've mastered a field because you know a couple vocabulary words. (Just like you think to have mastered science to the point that you have *the* definition of the scientific method, complete with randomly capitalized words for no apparent reason.)

Just LOL at all of this. Especially your second post. It's *WAY* more true than you realize.

No it's not And just a reminder, you admitted that your god beliefs are illogical, let's start there shall we.

And we're off.

I'll never forget it.


You're comparing an anxiety disorder to you consciously ignoring that your beliefs are illogical. Are you now admitting to some kind of psychological disorder Aaron? This just gets better and better, or worse and worse, depends on your perspective.

You're intellectually dishonest. Take that, it's better than having a psychological problem isn't it?


So, in response to being shown that your claim that I '' reject all modern psychology and pretend that the human mind is logical '' was completely wrong, your tactic as always is 'move on'. Well Aaron, the problem isn't going to go away just because you're not looking at it. You were wrong and your refusal to address that is more evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.

This might be your worst thread ever, I've never seen you so all over the place.

And that pretty much sums up your intellectual capacity.

I recommend "A Universe from Nothing" by Krauss for some interesting points re: this argument.

I'm intellectually capable of understanding that every second of your reasoning is subject to the laws of logic and that you have admitted that your views on god are illogical.

There is no small amount of irony in you believing yourself to be intellectually honest whilst admitting to your intellectual dishonesty. Priceless.

But... feel free to explain why I'm wrong and stop ducking that issue? C'mon, explain your logically incoherent belief system? This is never ever going to go away Aaron, I still can't believe how successful the OP was in causing you to admit what you did, or that you didn't see it coming when you think yourself so much smarter than me. You even abandoned Creation. Stunning.

I don't need to prove that something can come from nothing, I never claimed that it couldn't, theists did, and I'm simply agreeing with their claim and then using it to show why we don't need a god to explain the existence of the universe. They have a choice to abandon their claim, or abandon several other claims in order to defend it. Read the thread, you'll see how successful that approach has been.

LOL. Indeed.

LOL -- You presented an argument that failed. You are holding me to arguments I never made. You are dishonest in your presentation of what I've said.

You're wrong because you fail at being right.

I'm giving you a chance to explain this Aaron, you repeatedly ignore it and instead mount personal attacks on me to deflect, behaviour I've seen countless times in Trump supporters, are you a Trump supporter?

If your god beliefs aren't logical, then on what are they based? How do you justify knowingly holding logically incoherent beliefs?

If you don't think that we should hold our beliefs to a minimum standard of at least being logical (whether or not they're actually logical, people do make mistakes, after all) then how do you justify your constant attacks on others when you think that they're being illogical? Suppose I was a flat earther, you've forfeited any credibility in using logical argument to convince me that I'm wrong by abandoning it yourself in order to support your own beliefs.

Why should I take anything you say even remotely seriously? Why would anyone, in the face of your admissions?

You even denied Creation. There's a biblical parallel there.

I've already explained this to you. Nothing of substance until you address the central point of this thread, which is the failure of the argument in your OP. You're an adult, it's up to you if you respond or not.

You're free to continue the path of intellectual dishonesty of holding me to arguments that I never made, and I don't care. But I'll keep pointing it out. Saying that I've accepted/rejected some argument I've never made is just further evidence that you don't even understand how this stuff works.

Write down the syllogism that led you to believe that "the sky is blue (on a clear day, etc.)" is a true statement of reality.

You can say what you want about the OP but it achieved two things didn't it Aaron, your still startling admission that your god beliefs aren't logical and your abandonment of the Creation belief. (Of all the things I thought you might do to escape the problems highlighted by the OP, that was bottom of the list, I have to say) And that's what we're talking about now.

You can try to deflect from your confession as much as you like but it's never going to work and even though I won't be able to take your explanation very seriously, given that you've admitted that being logical isn't a requirement for your beliefs, I'm still curious to hear it anyway.

So, stop being so dishonest and explain it.


No. How about you just get straight to the explanation for how you justify your logically incoherent belief system instead?

How do you justify a tool? It's fascinating how rationalists can become so disconnected from instinct and desire, completely losing touch with the plot.

Rich.

If you did the exercise, you would understand. Whatever syllogism you write down (if you're even able to) will have nothing to do with why you believe what you believe about the color of the sky.

You're hiding from yourself again. Focus on how you're wrong, rather than trying to pretend you're right.

Why are you asking?

A fascinating observation, how is it relevant to the thread?

Pretty sure that I know where you're going with this and why you chose a colour as your example. But, correct me if I'm wrong, are you not about to attempt to use logic to convince me that our beliefs are not based on logic? If you succeeed you'll immediately prove yourself wrong and/or I would be entirely justified in believing you to be wrong for my own illogical reasons. Or, you'll have to agree that beliefs can be based on logical conclusions, in which case you'll now have to justify why you're content to have beliefs that aren't logical given that you accept that logic does actually matter. So, have at it. You've properly discombobulated youself here.

P1) Aaron has admitted that his god beliefs are illogical
P2) Aaron is always truthful
C) It's true that Aaron's god beliefs are illogical

Let's have some fun with that instead. Explain how the belief that I now hold that you knowingly hold illogical beliefs about your deity is not based on a logical conclusion and/or why I would be justified in holding a belief that I know conflicts with the conclusion of that argument, as you do with your deity (the one that you, without hesitation, agreed might not be responsible for creating the universe ).

I've studied some Epistemology Aaron, I'm well aware of what a complex subject belief is and that there are many reasons for holding beliefs which is why I asked you what your reasons are, I have no idea why you're being so coy about giving them. Do you regret your admission? Seems to me that with your new swerve into trying to prove that no beliefs are justified logically, you're just makng things even worse for yourself here.

You challenged the justification for a belief not based on logic.

I think maybe the better way to think of it as a strategy. Each of us is in a hostile environment, psychologically speaking, and we dialogue with each other in part to share strategies.

The hyper logical rationalist is focused on the minutia and details of fortifying the outside of their structure. They are so narrowly focused on this that they are unaware of the complete instability of the foundation of the structure.

Most theists have attempted to resolve the unstable foundation through religion, but the rationalists can see that the theist is still in the same hostile environment that they are in. Both want to solve the same problem but are using different strategies to do so.

The hyper rationalist needs to get to the point of acknowledging that fortifying the outside of a structure with a completely unstable foundation is ultimately futile. Most theists need to get to the point in which they acknowledge that, even though they have a strategy meant to address the foundation, they are still in the hostile environment so the problem isn't solved yet.

If you did study it, then why is this complicated or difficult for you? Or maybe you "studied" it, just like the syllogism in your OP is "logically valid."

There's nothing coy here. Nothing I've said here is that different from things I've stated many times throughout this forum. You're just too wrapped up in trying to "win" something against me that you literally cannot see what's right in front of you. (And no, color has nothing to do with it. I could have asked you to write down a syllogism for why you believe the earth is round. Or basically anything other than a strict mathematical fact.)

It starts with you acknowledging your own failures in your OP. It's really that simple. Can you be intellectually honest with yourself? Can you acknowledge your own failures? (I guess those are just rhetorical questions, because the answer is obvious.)

Edit: Here's something I posted in 2014. You can see that there's literally nothing new here. If you've been paying any attention at all over the years, you would be unsurprised by my understanding and perspective of human belief structures and the role of formal logic in the development of those beliefs.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...&postcount=175

Oh the OP was a huge success Aaron Beyond my expectations. I will never forget how willingly you abandoned the idea that your god actually created everything and agreed that you consciously hold illogical beliefs.

But, you're going to abandon your (logically incoherent) attempt to use logic to persuade me to hold a belief that logic doesn't inform beliefs but then expect me to abandon that belief after having proved that beliefs don't have to be logical? Just like that? That was too easy. Or had you genuinely not realised how self defeating your argument is?

You asked for a syllogism. I gave you one.

P1) Aaron has admitted that his god beliefs are illogical
P2) Aaron is always truthful
C) It's true that Aaron's god beliefs are illogical

So come on, prove your claim that "Whatever syllogism you write down will have nothing to do with why you believe what you believe".


This is hilarious.

Here you make a claim that I hold beliefs that are clearly not true yet I believe them anyway. Two things; 1) Even if that were true, I wouldn't be doing it knowingly, I would believe them to be true because being true and logical is the minimum standard that I hold my beliefs to. 2) So what, that has nothing to do with you admitting that your god beliefs are knowingly illogical.

I did have a belief that turned out not to be true though, it was that you had logical, rational reasons for believing in your god. However, since you've admitted that this is not the case, I have abandoned that belief because to continue to hold it would be delusional.

You still won't tell me what you use to justify holding knowingly illogical beliefs. And you believe that you're an honest person. That clearly isn't true either is it Aaron but on that one I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not aware of it. The cognitive dissonance is real.

No I didn't, you've misunderstood what's happening here. I've simply asked Aaron for the justification he uses to hold beliefs that he's admitted are not logical. I won't know what I think about that justification until I know what it is.

Perhaps you can see the problem I have with his confession though. If his claim is that we can justifiably hold beliefs that we know to be illogical, that beliefs do not need to be logical, that beliefs are not supported by logic, then why has he spent years using logic to try to show me that my beliefs are wrong? Even if he succeeded he would be giving me a justification for believing the things that he's telling me that I shouldn't believe, anyway... so he would fail.

He hasn't just shot himself in the foot, he's blown both his own legs off.


Wanna try to explain it without using an analogy? Although, I'm not sure there's much point since I'm well aware that there are many reasons for holding beliefs and how complex a subject 'truth' is. I don't have any issue with that. I have my own personal standards for my beliefs, I'm aware that they don't need to apply to others.

LOL -- "I will never forget..." Such a drama queen.

As I said, you're free to willfully misinterpret and misunderstand statements all you want. You're free to continue to accuse me of holding/rejecting arguments I never made nor endorsed. You're free to ignore that your OP is logically invalid.

You're free to believe that formal derivation of beliefs through syllogism is actually the way people come to believe the majority of things in their lives. You're free to believe that you actually come to believe things through formal syllogisms, and the ability to write a formal syllogism is at the core of understanding how we view and understand the world around us. You're free to be as stupid and ignorant as you want to be.

Whether you have the intellectual capacity to grow beyond where you are... that's an open question. But the all of the available evidence points in one direction.

And you in turn are free to constantly duck and dive and avoid having to expain how you regularly take people to task for perceived logical errors then abandon logic and claim that it doesn't inform our beliefs when it suits you too. Why not, you readily abandoned a core Christian belief when that suited you. You clearly have no intellectual honesty, you've spent about 15 posts saying the same thing and avoiding having to deal with problems you yourself created. I'd block you as being utterly useless to speak to except I'm enjoying giving you this much rope and letting you publicly hang yourself, no one is going to take you seriously after this thread. So, yeah, I won't ever forget being the architect of that More pertinently, I'm not going to let you forget it either.

You asked me for a syllogism so that you can prove that "Whatever syllogism you write down will have nothing to do with why you believe what you believe". So, why aren't you doing that now I've given you one?

Here it is again.

P1) Aaron has admitted that his god beliefs are illogical
P2) Aaron is always truthful
C) It's true that Aaron's god beliefs are illogical

....so, c'mon.... or are you just gonna blah blah about the OP some more and not even follow up on whatever you thought you were going to do...

Hilarity.

Even if Aaron is unwilling and/or unable to justify his beliefs in a compelling way, that doesn't mean he can't participate in a conversation about other people's beliefs and hold them to a standard he cannot meet. (See, for example, all of his posts ever). If you are trying to make the point that he is a hypocrite, fine, done, we get it; next time use the search function, as it has been done before. But if you want to discuss your OP, get on with it already!