Look, (IFF) god(s) are not bound by logic (THEN) they are NECESSARILY INCOMPREHENSIBLE.
Incomprehensible (incoherent) god(s) are INDISTINGUISHABLE from NO GOD(S).
And, an appeal to "spiritual concepts" is a de facto appeal to ignorance.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It can be logically understood that a thing cannot be understood logically. A claim of no God is a claim of omniscience.
All thought is necessarily logical (subject to cause and effect).
Anything that does not follow cause and effect would necessarily be RANDOM.
(IFF) you claim your god "cannot be understood logically" (THEN) your god acts RANDOMLY and is necessarily INCOMPREHENSIBLE and INCOHERENT.
There can be no "learning" about an INCOMPREHENSIBLE and INCOHERENT subject.
So it would really beg the question of why anyone would (or if they even could) "believe" in such a god, much less try to talk about it.
How do you know that all thought is linear?
Have you ever had a rich idea fall upon you in an instant, yet it takes you minutes to articulate it to yourself or to others? In what language did the thought carrying that idea speak to you? If you know not, then you can say not that it's linear. It certainly seems otherwise to me.
"If you know not, then you can say not that it's linear." - this is a classic appeal to ignorance.
An appeal to ignorance is commonly used to defend unfalsifiable claims (like bigfootspacealiens).
Here's the problem.
There are only two possible options.
(EITHER)
(1) your thoughts (and actions) are contextual (caused by previous experiences, including your biology).
(OR)
(2) your thoughts (and actions) are random (uncaused by any previous experiences).
If you pick #1, then your thoughts (and actions) relate to your memory and the world around you (contextual). This means your thoughts (and actions) are potentially USEFUL TO YOU AND OR OTHERS.
If you pick #2, then your thoughts (and actions) don't necessarily relate to anything at all. And as a matter of fact, statistically, it would be extremely unlikely that any RANDOM thought or action would be even remotely or incidentally USEFUL TO YOU AND OR OTHERS.
Now you might try to mix the two options, some caused, some uncaused, and that's fine.
Your useful thoughts and actions MUST BE CAUSED.
YOur "free" thoughts and actions are TAUTOLOGICALLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE (99.999% of the time).
I am not sure what you're attempting to argue here. Are you suggesting that a non-linear thought cannot have a cause?
Here's another example,
Imagine you've severely injured yourself (physically).
Now imagine you have two people who rush to help you.
One of them is a trained physician with 20 years of experience.
The other one is a janitor.
One of them is going to be constrained (not free) by their YEARS OF EXPERIENCE (MEMORY INFLUENCE, TRAINING, CONDITIONING).
The other one has no idea what to do, and is therefore FREE to do whatever they think of off the top of their head.
Now would you prefer to be helped by the FREE (uninfluenced) janitor?
Or would you prefer to be helped by the UNFREE (influenced) physician?