Dismissing god as an axiom, errors

While I'm loath to to defend the xtians, I feel you are making some errors in your manner of dismissing god in "more on axioms" (I should note you seem to only really address xtian theists).

"Next, if you are a Christian, then you believe that God made a decision of creating the universe. Therefore god is a being with free will."

You seem to be setting up a strawman here. As far as I can tell honest xtians admit they cannot know the "mind" of god and so saying it "made a decision" would be in error as the circumstances surrounding the impetus of creation aren't known.

Also, while they talk about god as if she was a being, I don't think that in the full analysis that such a contention is put forth or supportable. As the Muslums so elequantly put it: god is god. Whatever that is, is not a being as we commonly use the word.

Also I'm not sure that even god is granted as having total free will since its nature of benevolence (depending on which version of the xtian god you are dealing with) constrains its actual choices. Thus, as a deity it in theory has the potential for free action but its nature limits its choices any way. One could argue that its other powers constrain it in ways as well (omnipotence percludes weakness and omniscience percludes not cheating at cards).

So while xtians believe god created the world, what you add to that supposition (decision making, beingness and free will) seems both speculative and suspect.

Now I'll admit I'm a bit vague as to what you mean by making god the "first axiom." Perhaps an example of just what such an axiom would look like would have helped.

But I'm also vague as to what any one means by god in the first place so I shall muddle on as best I can.

"If one states that god is the first axiom, that this makes logic absolute, which means that god cannot change this decision, and could not have made it any other way."

I see four premises here: god as first axiom, logic as absolute, god cannot change a decision, there are no alternatives.

I don't see how god could be an axiom to begin with, first or otherwise, or why that would make logic more or less absolute than it actually is.

As for changing decisions or needing alternatives, I would say that god's omniscience inherantly percludes any desire to change decisions or need alternatives but I don't see that such would necessarily be outside god's power if the need should some how arise unless there is only one possible set of logical axioms (logic is inherantly absolute). So I'm not sure that your introducing these perils is relevant.

"1) If your god cannot change logic, and had to make logic precisely as it is (a necessary ramification of god as an axiom) your god has no free will : it is not a personal being, it is a mechanism. You have left Christianity and gone into pantheism."

This seems poorly formed on several accounts. You have not established that god *cannot* change logic or that this is the only possible form for it (something which the alternate logics we have developed seem to belie) and I can only support that she *will not* change logic due to her OOB nature (Omniscient, Omnipotent and Benevolent), which I hope you can see is a far different claim. I've already discussed the issue of free will and being as strawmen. Finally they would have left xtianity and gone into deism, not pantheism, but so what? That seems to be saying that you are OK with god as an axiom as long as it is a deist god.

"2) If logic must be as it is and cannot be changed, then god is inferior to logic, then god is inferior to logic - whether one wants to argue that logic is 'co-equal to god' or "part of his nature" all all of these ad hoc, non biblical claims all sum up to the same problem: that something else is superior to god, and outside of god, and responsible for logic"

If god chose the best possible logic and therefore won't change it, how does that make god inferior?

As for the other issues, those seem to be addressed in John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Where "the Word" is more properly understood as the Greek Logos and more correctly translated as Reason.

Reason is superior to logic, but it neither preceeds nor follows it.

I hope you'll forgive me if my accounting of the xtian point of view is lacking in places. I gave that all up decades ago and even then I was more of an irrational theistic bent that I was inclined to rational theism.

I think your primary error is allowing the term god in the first place and then trying to argue about the hypothetical limits and nature of an undefined term.

GIGO afterall.

Hi swarm. Yes, I address christians - I was a christian once, and I live amongst christians.

Sorry, but there is no strawman, and your haphazard application of this fallacy concerns me already.

Christians hold that god is a being that has free will and that he created the universe. I am replying to christian claims about their god.

If there are christians that do not hold to this, then the argument simply does not apply to them.

You don't seem to be aware of the claims of christianity. Perhaps this ought to preclude you from pointing out "errors" in my arguments?

Christians hold that god is in fact a being. If you don't agree, take it up with a christian.

A meaningless tautology is eloquent? We clearly have different standards of eloquence.

Yes, simplicity is an element of eloquence, but a truly eloquent statement is both simple and <i> meaningful </i>. Simply stating A=A is merely replicating the law of identity, and not providing any new information at all. It's the functional equivalent of tossing one's hands in the air and stating "I don't know". This is fine of course, but it has nothing to do with what christians in fact claim about their god.

Please understand that christians themselves hold that god is a being, and that this "perfect" being has free will, and that he created the universe. My argument is based on their claims, and not merely my view of their claims. If you disagree that these claims apply to god, then they do not apply to god. This does not make my argument a strawman, it makes christians claims erroneous, as per your opinion.

If you are going to point out that the christian god has contradictory traits, this is the point of the argument! But please try to grasp that the fact that christian claims about their god are contradictory is a different point altogether. Whether or not christian claims are contradictory, these claims do exist and I am responding to these claims.

If a christian asserts contradictory traits for his god, and I use these contradictions as a basis for a refutation, don't point out the contradictions in the christian claim as an error on my behalf! Please realize that my argument itself is intened to play off the contradictions inherent in christian claims about their god. If you want to argue that the claim is contradictory, my response is: of course! That's why I am using it as the basis of my argumetn.

I am merely taking the christians' assertion, not holding it to be valid. Capice?

Swarm, you have a lot of interesting things to say, but none of them are relevent here. I am merely taking what the christian states about his god, and showing that there are contradictions in this claim. The fact that these claims are NOT valid is the point I am making in the first place!

I am quoting what christians say about their god. If you have a problem with what christians claim, take it up with a christian.

Existence would be the first axoim. Read your Descartes. (although, admittably, he got it backwards)

Swarm, are you serious? Of course the term "god" is incoherent. It's incoherent out of necessity, as it refers to a supernatural entity. A supernatural entity defies rational description, it's the violation of logic and existence itself. How can logic point to it's own negation?

You missed the word "IF" in my statement. My statement is a conditional statement. I am not holding to these positions, I am attempting to exhaust both sides of the dichotomy and show that either permuation is invalid. Now if you want to argue that they are not exhaustive, be my guest.... literally and figuratively.

That's the point of the argument. I am not attempting to argue that god can serve as the first axiom. My argument is that god cannot serve as the first axiom.

Sorry, but the point is not that god would need to change the laws of logic, but whether he could have potentially made them differently. This is necessary if god is the creator of everything that exists, including existence itself.

If you find it all illogical, kudos to you, for this is all supposed to be "beyond logic".

Please read it again. It is a conditional statement. It uses the word "IF". The statement reads IF your god cannot change logic.... I don't have to establish it, as I am going to offer the dichtomy which deals with a god who cannot change them.

If you read it carefully, you'd see that I am going to offer the alternative (If your god isn't...), and show that both are problematic, ergo as I exhaust all possible choices, ergo there's no need for me to establish either position.

And again, neither position is my position. Capice?

One more time. I am using the christian's own claims about his god. It's not my argument, nor is it my view of their argument. It is what the christian states about his god, ergo there can be no strawman here at all.

If you are unaware of this, please bone on up christianity in america.

Ah! Yes, I meant deism. Thank you.

No, I am not saying that at all. I am merely pointing out that the christian is not following the tenets of christianity any longer, if he rejects the idea that his god has no free will - he's falling into deism. Do you see?

Read this again, and notice that this is the second half of the dichotomy that exhausts all possible choices.

The point is that if god is choosing it, if it is something that exists prior to him, something he cannot change, then he is inferior to logic. Logic is something external to him, outside his purvey. Something he must follow, etc.,etc.

This presents theological problems for the christian. I have no problem with this, but the christian, who asserts that god created all of existence, does. See?

Why should I? Your entire argument here is based on your flawed account of christianity. Ah, why not, you're obviously bright, thanks for coming here.

I think your primary error is that you failed to grasp that I am responding to christian claims, and that the very point of the argument in the first place is that the christian god is incoherent and contradictory. Of course god is an incoherent concept. The christians asserts that this god exists, and I use their definitions to show that they are contradictory.

Thanks for the deism-pantheism correction, however.


Oh, and consider going to infidelguy.com. I only made this site so I could keep angry theists from using up my email. Take care.

H: Yes, I address christians

Yes, but you say theists. Theist is a much broader term that runs from deists to who knows what.

Also it seems like you are addressing a specific subset of xtians, though I'm not sure which one. Since there is no quality control for xtian beliefs, it becomes difficult to know if, as I first thought, you are constructing a strawman or if you are inadvertantly cherry picking "gods" or if this is just a sect whose beliefs are foreign to me.

That's why I was sticking to the OOB definition. It seems as close as they ever get to agreement on what their deity entails.

H: Next, if you are a Christian, then you believe that God made a decision of creating the universe. Therefore god is a being with free will.

H: Sorry, but there is no strawman, and your haphazard application of this fallacy concerns me already.

No less than you apperant use of it does me. But I figure instead of just being concerned we can find out why we hold different ideas concerning the same text. I enjoyed your site and this seem a bit of a departure from your otherwise fine standard.

H: Christians hold that god is a being that has free will and that he created the universe. I am replying to christian claims about their god.

Here you imply All xtians hold a particualr view and you are replying to the totality of their claims.

H: If there are christians that do not hold to this, then the argument simply does not apply to them.

This seems an ad hoc patch for that error above by saying if Some xtians don't hold it then it doesn't apply.

H: You don't seem to be aware of the claims of christianity. Perhaps this ought to preclude you from pointing out "errors" in my arguments?

I'm not a theologen but I did get sucked into the religion for 11 years by marrying a xtian philosopher. I knew enough to teach catachism and hold my own in family debates. But I know that my understanding has a definate mystic and sectarian slant and is plauged by the fact that I know that its 99.98% pure hokem. (I'll grant them some tribal lore here and there.)

H:Christians hold that god is in fact a being. If you don't agree, take it up with a christian.

Only if you allow them to redefine being beyond any recognition. If you hold them to any reasonably accepted definition then they will usually agree that god must be something other than just a being.

I have taken it up with some of them before. It makes a nice change of pace from the "god exists" rut.

But again this is a sectarian splitting point. Some sects seem to hold that god is some badass dude as a point of dogma. Getting a clear and concise definition of god is harder than slaying a hydra with a pocket knife.

H: A meaningless tautology is eloquent? We clearly have different standards of eloquence.

I'm surprised to hear a logician dis'ing the eloquence of a simple and clear tautology on god when the norm is layers and layers of BS. "God is god" cuts straight to the chase and makes no pretense that the term is anything other than self referencial and without external referant.

H: Yes, simplicity is an element of eloquence, but a truly eloquent statement is both simple and <i> meaningful </i>.

I am of the school that holds meaning is not inherant in the object, but is instead suplied by the knower. Nor do I limit meaning to just what makes overt sense to the intellect.

H: ...It's the functional equivalent of tossing one's hands in the air and stating "I don't know". This is fine of course, but it has nothing to do with what christians in fact claim about their god.

Again it depends on the xtians and the sect. I've heard it argued that "true" xtianity must be agnostic (the cloud of unknowing) and depend solely on faith and/or grace for its connection with god. Others allow reason as a guide and stills others make the pretense of full reason.

H: My argument is based on [the xtian's] claims, and not merely my view of their claims.

Just some of their claims and the some you have seem convenient. Probably this is due to the most vociferous xtians being the least intelligent and easiest to refute. But some/all errors are tricky and can be insidous.

I'm not saying this is from any purposeful intent, I'm just pointing it out in what I hope is the intent of the site, to have well formed reasons and opinions that are as sound as they can be.

H: Swarm, you have a lot of interesting things to say, but none of them are relevent here. I am merely taking what the christian states about his god, and showing that there are contradictions in this claim. The fact that these claims are NOT valid is the point I am making in the first place!

And a point I agree with, but the means of arriving at that conclution seems weak as it is based in aspects of their deity which xtians are not all in agrement with. I'm not even sure that all xtians agree with the bare OOB definition.

Thus while you are refuting a segmant of the xtians beliefs, the others will just agree those heretics had it all wrong and continue happily on. (Their history is rife with just this sort of thing.)

That is the great difficulty with a rational refutation of nonsense. If you allow for the nonsense to have any definition and then attack the definition instead, while the definition is easily refuted, it becomes an infinite regression as nonsense has no bounds as to how and how often it can be incorrectly defined.

H: I am quoting what christians say about their god. If you have a problem with what christians claim, take it up with a christian.

As an aside, You are quoting who? "Christians?" That is not a person or a reference work. I see no citations to show that any particular xtian or sect holds these beliefs for me verify your claim. I see only the naked assertion that you are correctly representing the xtian views and you must admit you are a hostile witness to their beliefs.

It is not my job to verify your assertion because I disagree with it.

H: Existence would be the first axoim. Read your Descartes. (although, admittably, he got it backwards)

It would seem that existence would still be the "first" axiom unless a non existent god is being posited.

BTW, good spotting on Descartes.

H: Of course the term "god" is incoherent. It's incoherent out of necessity, as it refers to a supernatural entity. A supernatural entity defies rational description, it's the violation of logic and existence itself. How can logic point to it's own negation?

Yet you are trying to act as if it has a coherant definition and coherant properties, hence my difficulty. Once you say it is incoherant, what is the point of further treatment?

Logic by itself is content free symbolic manipulation. If its own negation can be represented symbolically, it is subject to logic. It is only when we add reason that content and context can be analysed and what is logical but unreasonable can be excluded.

H: That's the point of the argument. I am not attempting to argue that god can serve as the first axiom. My argument is that god cannot serve as the first axiom.

I don't see why you posit something you know is false as a conditional of a bunch of other stuff and then discuss the other stuff as problamatic to conditional premis.

H: Sorry, but the point is not that god would need to change the laws of logic, but whether he could have potentially made them differently. This is necessary if god is the creator of everything that exists, including existence itself.

The laws of logic are based on its axioms. Change the axioms and logic changes. Since we have logics which have alternate axioms, I don't see how it could be imposible for a god the not have the same potential we exercise.

It seems like you are arguing that logic has some kind of necessary metaphysical connection with the establishment of reality.

H: 1) If your god cannot change logic, and had to make logic precisely as it is (a necessary ramification of god as an axiom) your god has no free will : it is not a personal being, it is a mechanism. You have left Christianity and gone into pantheism."

H: Please read it again. It is a conditional statement. It uses the word "IF". The statement reads IF your god cannot change logic.... I don't have to establish it, as I am going to offer the dichtomy which deals with a god who cannot change them.

If (god cannot change logic) and (logic has to be precisely as it is) then (your god has no free will). (with a non sequitar about this leading to deism)

Logic can be changed and it doesn't have to be precisely as it is and I don't see the implied necessary connection to a total lack of free will and I see no dichtomous exposition.

H: I am merely pointing out that the christian is not following the tenets of christianity any longer, if he rejects the idea that his god has no free will - he's falling into deism. Do you see?

I think you mean if he accepts "the idea that his god has no free will," But while this might be unpaletable to a die hard xtian, it still leaves us with a deist god and so is a weak arguement.

H: 2) If logic must be as it is and cannot be changed, then god is inferior to logic, then god is inferior to logic - whether one wants to argue that logic is 'co-equal to god' or "part of his nature" all all of these ad hoc, non biblical claims all sum up to the same problem: that something else is superior to god, and outside of god, and responsible for logic"

If (logic must be as it is) and (cannot be changed), then (god is inferior to logic).

But (logic has several forms) and (logic can be changed).
Also I don't see the implication that (god is inferior to logic).

Again I don't see in the second half any dichotomy that exhausts all possible choices.

H: The point is that if god is choosing it, if it is something that exists prior to him, something he cannot change, then he is inferior to logic.

Not if, as John 1:1 suggests, it is an aspect of her.

H: I think your primary error is that you failed to grasp that I am responding to christian claims

If I fail to grasp it, perhaps it is because you don't document them as such.
You should list the specific claims and what sect they are from.
Also don't pretend to be addressing all of theism when you are only addressing a minority xtian position.

H: Oh, and consider going to infidelguy.com. I only made this site so I could keep angry theists from using up my email. Take care.

Since the comments are specific to the site, this seems as good a place as any.

I use the term christian and theist interchangably, as 99% of my encounters with theists are christians, but I understand your dilemma.

First of all, the argument is set up with a series of conditional statements, so this clearly addresses this "problem" making your claim moot.

Additionally, I am addressing christian claims about god as a being. If some christians reject this view, fine, but it has nothing to do with this argument, nor does it have anything to do with the bible states, as it clearly refers to god as a being.

I recognize some christians may plausibly reject the view god as a being( there is, after all, every sort of christian), but your contention that they represent any sizable group is unsubtantiated to say the least. In fact, your claim is clearly the erroneous claim. Christianity concerns a belief in a god who is a being - man is created in the image of this purported god, and most christians seem to agree on this. If you can cite any exceptions, they clearly would not represent the majority view, hence your claims here are absurd.

Apparently, you have no qualms against tossing around logical fallacies without justifying the claim. I've not made any argument here at all, hence there can be no strawman. Again, your haphazard application of logical fallacies is bothersome.

They do hold to this view. Are you really this uninformed? They hold that god is a personal being. Read a bible before you respond again. I have no time for such nonsense.

You are the only one making errors here. I will again point it out to you.

If a person who believes himself to be a christian disagrees with my conditional statements, then the argument does not apply to him. Period. This is how a conditional statement works. If you are unaware, please consult a basic logic textbook.

However, it is painfully clear that the bible describes god as a being, and that christians believe he is a being, so your counter claim that there are christians who do not view god as a beign can only apply to a very small subset of people - and you've not even supported this claim, you've merely asserted it. You've not proven that there is any sizable group of christians who hold that god is not a being. This makes your claim an iron man fallacy.

Certainly not.

They in fact do this! My point here is not to take issue with the incoherency of the concept, but to attack presuppositional arguments. You keep pointing out that their claims are incohernet or contradictory, when that's the point of my argument.

Their view of "being" is of course, contradictory. Again, you keep confusing their incoherent conceptualization of god, with points of my argument. You really are very lost here. The theist claims god is a being, I merely take their claim and show where it is faulty. As for the problem of god being a "being"., I deal with this elsewhere.

I am not disrespecting tautologies. I am merely stating that saying "god is god" is an empty statement.

You're not listening. I will repeat this again. I am taking a christian claim, and showing that the claim is contradictory. I am not accepting the validity of any of the claims. I deal with the incoherency of god in other areas.

So, why do I not leave it simply at that? Because I wish to debunk presuppositional arguments of theists who reject the problem of noncognitivism.

Christians claim that god is a being. He has emotions, he has thoughts, he makes commands. They even inform us that we are made in the image of this being. Your claims that most christians do not believe this is a naked assertion - you've no proof at all of such an assertion.

Right.

Audible sigh. I am not acting as if this god has a coherent definition. I've already dealt with this error above.

Are you really this obtuse?

No I am not acting as if these are coherent definitions. I am not even dealing with that issue. I am presenting conditional statements that I do not necessarly endorse.

If I take my opponents claim,and present contradictions in it, this does not imply that I accept the validity of any part of the claim.

Zork a tall dwarf likes cake
zork, a tall dwarf, hates cake.

To point out the contradiction does not imply that I believe "tall dwarves".

It seems to me that you have some serious problem with reading comprehension.

Fallacy of naked assertion. It's not a 'non sequitur'. You've not demonstrated that this is so.

You're lost here.

Consider glasses then, as I've made this point several times.

...you didn't understand it. Anyone who doesn't even grasp what a conditional statement is, and that it doesn't require that I stand by the truth value of anything in that statement, requires too much remedial teaching before we continue.

I am clearly in "high water" here "six inches above my head" that is I don't know what is really going on here, but I might. God is axiomatic? Has to be, somewhere something has to stop. It was Archimedes who said something to the effect, reffering to geometry though, that at some point you have to stop demonstrating, or you will demonstrate endlessly. But then on the other hand it was Ghandi who said: "The truth is self evident." I can see both sides of the coin here, because though an axiom is not proved, something as self evident as if two triangles are the same as a third, then they are the same as one another (in Euclidean space) does not leave me with the desire to further question, or even worry about arguing it if you wanted me too. I am very comfortable with that axiom, I wouldn't require any more proof, but then I am not the master of my own destiny, it would seem that is evolution. Natural selection, in my opinion, has made us what we are. That much seems to be self evident to me. Yes, I would have to say I am comfortable with something that is self evident, actually, but so far no one has made god self evident to me. An axiom has to be self evident. In that sense god is not axiomatic.

I would have to agree. "God" ought to be axiomatic.

Right

Precisely. We can say "god does not exist" without suffering from a self refutation. This means that "god" is not axiomatic.