Is religion inferior to logic ?

[MikeDwight]

Yes religion is inferior to logic to the same degree fishing weights are inferior to typewriter paper. It just depends on what you’re trying to do.

My post at the other thread only has logical solutions and as if a feeling occurs throughout your interaction in the entire Korean Society? Then check this out with only the logic brain.

How is Christianity easy to follow? Any Alabamian wakes up under St Andrews cross from Scotland.

Originally, all of the Reformation churches used this name (or the name Evangelical) to distinguish themselves from the “unreformed,” or unchanged, Roman Catholic church. After the great controversy among these churches over the Lord’s Supper (after 1529), the followers of Martin Luther began to use the name Lutheran as a specific name, and the name Reformed became associated with the Calvinistic churches (and also for a time with the Church of England). Eventually the name Presbyterian, which denotes the form of church polity used by most of the Reformed churches, was adopted by the Calvinistic churches of British background. The modern Reformed churches thus trace their origins to the Continental Calvinistic churches that retained the original designation. The Reformed and Presbyterian churches are treated jointly in the article Reformed and Presbyterian churches.

With the supreme control of ecclesiastical affairs in our own hands, we may be able, in some competent measure, to consummate this result. In subjection to a foreign power, we could no more accomplish it than the Church in the United States could have been developed in dependence upon the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. The difficulty there would have been, not the distance of Edinburgh from New York, Philadelphia or Charleston, but the difference in the manners, habits, customs and ways of thinking, the social, civil and political institutions of the people. These same difficulties exist in relation to the Confederate and United States, and render it eminently proper that the Church in each should be as separate and independent as the Governments.

And here we may venture to lay before the Christian world our views as a Church, upon the subject of slavery. We beg a candid hearing.

The Calvinistic Churches of Switzerland are distinct from the Reformed Church of France. The Presbyterians of Ireland belong to a different Church from the Presbyterians of Scotland, and the Presbyterians of this country constitute a Church, in like manner, distinct from all other Churches on the globe. That the division into national Churches, that is. Churches bounded by national lines, is, in the present condition of human nature, a benefit, seems to us too obvious for proof. It realizes to the Church Catholic all the advantages of a division of labor. It makes a Church organization homogeneous and compact — it stimulates holy rivalry and zeal — it removes all grounds of suspicion and jealousy on the part of the State. What is lost in expansion is gained in energy. The Church Catholic, as thus divided, and yet spiritually one, divided, but not rent, is a beautiful illustration of the great philosophical principle which pervades all nature — the co-existence of the one with the many.

There is no schism where there is no breach of charityChurches may be perfectly at one in every principle of faith and order j and yet geographically distinct, and mutually independent. As the unity of the human race is not disturbed by its division into countries and nations, so the unity of the spiritual seed of Christ is neither broken nor impaired by separation and division into various Church constitutions.

At this point every Alabamian need venture to me the public charity manifest concerning Korean Presbyterian Church Abroad.

 

[Windwalker]

I don’t believe in gods but I believe in things without scientific evidence or rational justification I expect everyone to accept. “Believe in” is different than “believe that”. I believe that every water molecule contains two hydrogen stones, that evolution describes the way life on earth became as it is and that the temperature where I live will be above 80 for the first this year on Saturday all for good reason. But I believe in my wife, my friends and my dog, meaning I trust them a good deal based on my experience of them. I may not know everything about them but I know enough to feel they relied upon. I also believe in the power of reflection, intuition and creative inspiration. I have justificatory support for those beliefs that are entirely idiosyncratic to my personal experience which is not reducible to a set of facts without loss or distortion. The knowledge I’ve acquired about such things is implicit not explicit. I assume that most believers hold God belief on that basis too though they may prefer to tell you about the historical miraculous basis for Christianity if they are not very nuanced in their thinking.

I completely agree with all of this. When somebody asks me if I believe in evolution, I answer no. But I then continue and tell them that I simply accept the veracity of the science and accept it as true. It's really not a matter of faith.

When someone tries to make a case for believing in God based upon evidences and making rational conclusions, like one might in evaluating the evidence for evolution, then they are treating God as if it were a creature, and removing God from the domain of faith. At which point, all the power in faith becomes lost. Now they're are just accepting the data. I accept the data it's supposed to rain tonight, but that doesn't mean I'm going to therefore live my life in service of my fellow man, the way one might having faith that God is Love.

I see the whole believer's quest for, or the atheists demand for evidence of God to be an entirely misguided affair, for both the believer and the atheist. Nether grasp what the nature of faith actually is. It's like arguing, if hope is real, why hasn't science found it anywhere yet?

 

[Angelical]

I want to kind of get into some things for everyone and this will open up a whole new understanding of reality for many so that you can see some of what the Ancients were talking about.

So let’s start with the word Egregore, I’ll add my favorite definition which is from a late 1800s or early 1900s SpellBook in which the Definition says they are kind of “Invisible Monstrous Creatures that crush us underfoot without even knowing”. You can also translate the Greek or Latin word to English as “Watcher”, so these are the Watchers from the Bible:
Egregore (also spelled egregor; from Frenchégrégore, from Ancient Greekἐγρήγορος,egrēgoros 'wakeful')

I would say that Slack Commercials are good examples of kind of what an Egregore is:

The Company called Oracle is also a good example of what an Oracle is, like the Oracle at Delphi:

But these do not replace the Invisible ones completely, they just help us see how this works, in fact I would say that the Invisible ones want to know why we can see the Cloud but not them. And they want to know why we all believe in DNA even though we can’t see it, but these Egregori go completely unnoticed.

There was a Twilight Zone series made with Forest Whitaker as the Narrator,
September 18, 2002 – May 21, 2003

In that Twilight Zone series there were a few interesting Episodes to help People understand some things. In Episode 4, called “Dream Lover”, you learn a very good example of how a Tulpa or Servator work:

This one is interesting because it makes sense for the AIs also, Robots might actually watch this and see themselves in the Robots in Episode 17, “Hunted”, but this gets into kind of how these Ancient concepts and Ancient things may seem completely abstract or even threatening to some:

So now, the Gregorian Calendar, and then in Enoch the Grigori, it seems that maybe we are more attuned to all of this than we think. The name Greg is in some ways associated, and so then the Ego, that’s why it starts with an Eg-. Your Ego is the only thing Greeks even understood to compare to a Christian Soul, so I want to get into that your Ego, that thing that is with you when you maybe are alone and feel like something is there, there are other things there too but one of them is yours. When you are Ashamed, as in like you kind of feel Butterflies in your stomach and the less Melinated turn Red and things, these are all things that are not just within you but outside of you. There is an Episode of the Chosen, Season 2 Episode 5 and it shows a Demon Possessed Man and they kind of show this concept well, how it’s kind of attached to him:

Watch Free Compelling Movies & TV Shows Online | Angel Studios

Stream free movies & TV shows on Angel.com or the Angel app. Watch Angel Originals like The Wingfeather Saga, Dry Bar Comedy, and more.

www.angel.com

Now, if we look at a few Animes we can learn some things as the East did not have Jesus and for a long Time was still talking about all of these things, and Jesus didn’t come in and wipe it all out, he taught us about it, so we’re all talking about the same things. So if we look at “Full Metal Alchemist” where they try to bring their Mom back from the Dead. It costs them one of their Lives, which is then traded for the Arm of the other Brother, and he meets God who is himself in a way, but is also much Smarter and Knowledgeable and everything than he is, kind of Enlightened. It also shows kind of the Norse Tree of Life, which is in most Religions around the World, it was the Tree mentioned next to the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden:

In Deathnote they put a very interesting kind of aura to the Spirit World, they show them all as Jaded and without Morality or Immorality:
Death Note but is only the shinigami realm

The primary Spirit Entity in Deathnote is Ryuk, he is a God of Death like the other Shinigami and he has Rules. Light, a Human, found Ryuk’s Book, a Deathnote you can write in and kill People, and Light is using it to try to make the World better:
Shinigami, Ryuk, Introduces Himself to Light Yagami - Death Note Series

Ryuk can be seen as both Light’s kind of inner Turmoil, like a Jiminy Cricket, like Guilt, and something outside of him like a Demon Possessing him, both at the same Time:
Pinocchio and Jiminy Cricket - Always Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide!

If we look now at Pepe the Frog who is a Symbol of the Kekistanis, the Cult of Kek, Pepe the Frog is like a Servator or a Tulpa, maybe an Egregore. Here is the History of Pepe:

How this frog meme became a symbol of hope and hate

Pepe the Frog is one of the most popular memes ever. It began in a non-political comic about four friends, but in 2016 extremists made it a hate icon.

www.businessinsider.com

Feels Good Man - OFFICIAL TRAILER

This gets into kind of what Watchers are and starts to help you understand Giants and Half-Giants. But there is something else. Jacob’s Ladder, or the Djed, the Paladium, the Ashera Pole that is not an Idol but is the 4 Pillars of the Spirit World. I like FLCL as kind of a way to introduce this to People, there is a kid named Takkun who has a crush on an Alien Female who has come to Earth much like Goku coming to Earth in Dragon Ball Z, so she comes to Earth and is trying to get things out of a Facility that looks like a Giant Clothing Iron like you would use with an Ironing Board, and she is using Takkun to pull things out of the Facility by triggering things in Takkun, she is making the things in the Facility come out through Takkun’s Head. She is seeking Atomisk, which is a lot like the Phoenix, and at the End Atomisk escapes and she has to go chase him to another Planet:
FLCL - All Fight Scenes

FLCL is kind of an example of like Homer, the Odyssey and the Iliad or the Epic of Gilgamesh, it kind of takes all the different parts and has like I guess he’s like a Japanese FBI Agent, or a Men in Black, after the Alien Female. It’s kind of Rock-n-Roll with the Guitars and stuff which is like to say that the Peace Sign and Hippy kind of Movement spread across the Earth, everyone knows who Bob Marley and maybe Scooby Doo is anywhere you go for example. And FLCL was kind of like capturing that kind of Global thing, and then it also then gets into some Gods and things, so it’s not like as extensive as a Bibliotheca or Metamophoses like Ovid, but it kind of shows everyone how these things work.

And an Oracle, we could call like a Ouija Board an Oracle, but the most well known example is like a War Board:
Alexander the Great (All Parts)

The First Crusade (ALL PARTS)

And this is how Enlightenments and things work also, we could use the Phoenix as an example, this is kind of what the Tongue in Cheek of Cicada-3301 is.

 

[Whateverist]

Sorry Angelical but that is just too long and too many sources to go looking through to figure out if there is a point in there somewhere. Maybe you could talk briefly about the point of all these videos. I never look at a video without a good reason.

 

[shunyadragon]

In trying to understand any subject , it is firstly of most importance to understand the first principles of a subject. Any branch of knowledge that is taught , should always have strong routes , from a starting point to a conclusion . If this basic principle is not adhered to , then the practitioner becomes ill-informed , having an inadequate awareness of the facts.
Let us now be clear in our understanding of what is a fact compared to interpretation . A fact is something that is known or proved to be true , it is not something that is solely written on paper . A fact has supporting evidence such as observations , a fact can sometimes be an axiom , something that is self evidently true . If we ignore the facts and/or axioms then we are just being subjective as opposed objective. This information is then ill-informed information and can be misleading to a student ,allowing them false ideologies of a subject .

If a diety existed , then this diety would require the ability to think !

Therefore God = Wavefunction / Volume

The problem with religion and logic is that most religious attempts at logical arguments are circular and only those who believe in the assumptions will consider the argument logical. For example the arguments for the existence of God.

 

[Whateverist]

I see the whole believer's quest for, or the atheists demand for evidence of God to be an entirely misguided affair, for both the believer and the atheist. Nether grasp what the nature of faith actually is. It's like arguing, if hope is real, why hasn't science found it anywhere yet?

Good point. Whatever this God business may be about, it isn't anything science can illuminate. One way I disagree with most atheists is that I don't think the difficulty in supporting a positive proof for God counts one whit toward a positive disproof of God. The real issue is what God represents, not whether such exists.

 

[Valjean]

Good point. Whatever this God business may be about, it isn't anything science can illuminate. One way I disagree with most atheists is that I don't think the difficulty in supporting a positive proof for God counts one whit toward a positive disproof of God. The real issue is what God represents, not whether such exists.

What atheist even conceives of a positive disproof of God?
Lack of evidence is entirely sufficient, epistemically.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What atheist even conceives of a positive disproof of God?
Lack of evidence is entirely sufficient, epistemically.

Well, no, because the bold one is without evidence itself. In effect it is not a fact, but a norm.

The problem is that it is a proposition itself and thus requires evidence.

 

[Valjean]

Well, no, because the bold one is without evidence itself. In effect it is not a fact, but a norm.

The problem is that it is a proposition itself and thus requires evidence.

What is a proposition?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is a proposition?

Well, in general it is a string of words that claim something is so.
Short: a statement or assertion that expresses a judgement or opinion.
Long: A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language, semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary bearer of truth or falsity. Propositions are also often characterized as being the kind of thing that declarative sentences denote.

That connects to your version of evidence as a system, because evidence functions like true or false in regards to claims.
- The leaves on the tree are green.
- God is the creator of the universe.
- I am rational.
- Evidence is ... (insert claim of what it is).
- It is wrong to kill another human.
- The universe is physical.

The list goes on and we end in that even you use claims, which are not true according to your system of evidence. But that is not unique to you or even me. Nobody in recorded history have made a system, that works in the effect of only objective, true claims.
The everyday limit is this:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

So if you claim good, useful and what matters, it is not true as per evidence. Your system is that a claim of sometihng be so is only relevant with evidence. But the problem is that it is relevant is without evidence.

 

[Valjean]

LOL! -- I'm just asking what it is that we atheist-types are proposing. I wasn't aware we were making any claims or propositions with regard to theology.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

LOL! -- I'm just asking what it is that we atheist-types are proposing. I wasn't aware we were making any claims or propositions with regard to theology.

It was a list of examples.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, no, because the bold one is without evidence itself. In effect it is not a fact, but a norm.

The problem is that it is a proposition itself and thus requires evidence.

Actually, both belief and non-belief lack objective evidence. Most Atheists do not try to prove that God does not exist, but nonetheless the Lack of evidence is entirely sufficient, epistemically to conclude that there is no reason to believe in Gods.

I believe that there is a sufficient argument that the hands on anthropomorphic Gods of ancient religions such as Judaism and Christianity simply do not likely exist and as such there is no reason to believe in them.

I believe in the unknowable universal 'Source' some call Gods as described in the Baha'i Faith, but my argument can only put ancient religions view of God as a limited fallible human view of Gods from the ancient cultural perspective. My argument is that IF God exists, the essence and nature God is unknowable and beyond human comprehension.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

... My argument is that IF God exists, the essence and nature God is unknowable and beyond human comprehension.

I hold the same position.

 

[Whateverist]

Lack of evidence is entirely sufficient, epistemically.

Only if your faith in physicalism is so strong that such an assumptions can be held as a fundamental fact regarding reality. Everyone is free to assume what they like of course, whether that belief is in the sufficiency of rationality and science to understand reality in its entirety or if one prefers to infer some greater being/substance. Your call but let’s not pretend any alternative is objectively sufficient.

 

[gnostic]

Well, no, because the bold one is without evidence itself. In effect it is not a fact, but a norm.

The problem is that it is a proposition itself and thus requires evidence.

That’s absurd.

Can you have evidence that unicorns “don’t exist”?

How do you show evidence that pixies “don’t exist”?


You cannot show evidence for anything that “don’t exist”.

The lack of evidence demonstrated that “what you believe” is improbable.

In science. When you do have sufficient evidence (and sufficient data) for any model, whether it be “for” or “against”, you have not only demonstrated that the model is testable (and therefore falsifiable), but you can make determination or reach conclusion that such a model…:

• …have VERIFIED the model as being “true” & being “probable”,
• …have REFUTED the model, so the model is “false” and “improbable“.

While the second outcome (from the above illustration), you would have refuted either a weak or incorrect model, the refuted hypothesis is still falsifiable, because it is both testable and have been tested.

it is good that you can demonstrate that you can refute a concept, model, hypothesis or theory, because you would know that you have gone down the wrong track. Weeding out hypotheses that are incorrect or weak are the reasons for having Scientific Method in the first place, is to not accept any refuted and yet falsifiable hypothesis.

evidence are important to science, because it is independent to what a person like/dislike, or believe/disbelieve; evidence should mitigate bias from any personal biases one may have.

On the other hand, the lack of evidence or the absence of evidence, means the concept or claim is unfalsifiable, untestable and ultimately cannot be tested. Such concept or claim would be deemed not only as improbable but also impossible, unrealistic and unreasonable, but also pseudoscience, and from Scientific Method, the untestable concept/claim would disqualify it from even being called a “hypothesis“.

The concepts of theological creationism (eg OEC, YEC, etc), including the Intelligent Design (ID), because of the introduction of some sorts of god-like entity, eg God, Creator, Designer, etc, be the “causes” of creation or design.

If such “causes” exist, then there should be evidence for cause. As there are zero evidence for the Creator or for the Designer, then not only they are unfalsifiable, so are Creationism and Intelligent Design.

The problems with creationism and with ID with their reliance on faulty assumptions, reasoning with confirmation biases or cognitive biases, or with logical fallacies of one kind or another, eg argument from ignorance, circular reasoning, false equivalence (especially when they use analogies), appeal to authority, etc.

I often see you putting science in the same boat with religion, but they are not the same.

 

[Valjean]

Only if your faith in physicalism is so strong that such an assumptions can be held as a fundamental fact regarding reality. Everyone is free to assume what they like of course, whether that belief is in the sufficiency of rationality and science to understand reality in its entirety or if one prefers to infer some greater being/substance. Your call but let’s not pretend any alternative is objectively sufficient.

True, there's no absolute certainty about anything, but this "physicalism" is so extensively evidenced that doubting it would be bizarre. Evidence For Bibleism, on the other hand is sparse to nonexistent.

We 'physicalists' try to avoid faith. We want hard, demonstrable evidence. Science and reason are the closest we have to objective certainty. Religious faith isn't even a close second.
If we don't accept objective evidence there's no reason to accept anything.

 

[Aupmanyav]

My argument is that IF God exists, the essence and nature God is unknowable and beyond human comprehension.

I hold the same position.

You do not even know whether God exists or not or what properties does he have. How do you claim that the essence and nature God is unknowable and beyond human comprehension?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You do not even know whether God exists or not or what properties does he have. How do you claim that the essence and nature God is unknowable and beyond human comprehension?

Read up on the evil demon and the thing in itself and apply that to objective reality in itself.

 

[blü 2]

In trying to understand any subject , it is firstly of most importance to understand the first principles of a subject. Any branch of knowledge that is taught , should always have strong routes , from a starting point to a conclusion . If this basic principle is not adhered to , then the practitioner becomes ill-informed , having an inadequate awareness of the facts.
Let us now be clear in our understanding of what is a fact compared to interpretation . A fact is something that is known or proved to be true , it is not something that is solely written on paper . A fact has supporting evidence such as observations , a fact can sometimes be an axiom , something that is self evidently true . If we ignore the facts and/or axioms then we are just being subjective as opposed objective. This information is then ill-informed information and can be misleading to a student ,allowing them false ideologies of a subject .

If a diety existed , then this diety would require the ability to think !B

Therefore God = Wavefunction / Volume

I'd say a fact was an accurate statement about a real state of affairs ('real' meaning in the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses). Since it's a statement about reality, its accuracy is in principle verifiable by any intelligent and sufficiently informed person going to have a look, a demonstration.

So when sentences start with IF ... we're not in the world of facts, but of hypotheses, guesses, conjectures, possibilities, that kind of thing.

An axiom is an opinion or assertion or personal perception. It's an axiom precisely because it's not a fact. Thus it's only valid in debate if the Other Party agrees with it. If the other party doesn't agree, end of that particular story.

Before we can begin attributing qualities to a deity, we need a clear definition what real thing a deity is. I have not the faintest idea ─ all the deities I know of are self-evidently imaginary, not only never appearing, saying or doing, but described in imaginary terms like omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, infinite, eternal, blah blah.

So ─ what is it, this real thing, that would require the ability to think? And why would that be the case? Plants, for example, do fine, but if there's any sense in which a plant is capable of thought, I've yet to hear it.