We thought you took the cure for fly bites.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Logic vs Religion
- Thread starter guilo
- Start date
Gadfly,
Your words explain clearly why any debate with a theist is next to futile, "We do not use your terminology to describe our position to you. We use our own vocabulary. We do not accept your definition of logic with or without an L. Logic is correct inferences, period".
So you just make up your own meaning for words that threaten your beliefs. How very convenient. Since you don't believe me, why not ask your tutor Orantes to explain what "Logic" means. He will tell you that the word "correct" is foreign to Logic. A "sound" argument is the most you can hope for in Logic. A sound argument is one that is valid and all of whose premises are true. But this is too much to ask from a theist, since in all of recorded history not one single true premise has ever been verified. That is why religious statements are called statements of "belief" or statements of "faith", which is a polite way of saying "baloney".
Yet you boldly affirm that "Faith is based on knowledge and has properties just like matter has properties. Illusions have nothing to do with faith, which is always based on a solid logic..."
My goodness! Faith is based on knowledge! Indeed. "Knowledge" of course is conveniently defined by the theist as "personal revelation" or just plain "feeling certain". As for your understanding of "solid logic", I have already pointed out the error in your definition. It is no wonder you opt to use your "own vocabulary" when debating with those who employ the standard meaning of words. If you could offer anything to substantiate this ill founded remark, you ought to publish it. For this would greatly advance the feeble position of the theist whose only recourse at present is to keep chanting, "I know God exists for I have experienced him in my heart!"
Actually, if you really want your book to sell, provide a "cogent" argument (look it up) for your assertion that a god exists. I'll be your first customer!
Your words explain clearly why any debate with a theist is next to futile, "We do not use your terminology to describe our position to you. We use our own vocabulary. We do not accept your definition of logic with or without an L. Logic is correct inferences, period".
So you just make up your own meaning for words that threaten your beliefs. How very convenient. Since you don't believe me, why not ask your tutor Orantes to explain what "Logic" means. He will tell you that the word "correct" is foreign to Logic. A "sound" argument is the most you can hope for in Logic. A sound argument is one that is valid and all of whose premises are true. But this is too much to ask from a theist, since in all of recorded history not one single true premise has ever been verified. That is why religious statements are called statements of "belief" or statements of "faith", which is a polite way of saying "baloney".
Yet you boldly affirm that "Faith is based on knowledge and has properties just like matter has properties. Illusions have nothing to do with faith, which is always based on a solid logic..."
My goodness! Faith is based on knowledge! Indeed. "Knowledge" of course is conveniently defined by the theist as "personal revelation" or just plain "feeling certain". As for your understanding of "solid logic", I have already pointed out the error in your definition. It is no wonder you opt to use your "own vocabulary" when debating with those who employ the standard meaning of words. If you could offer anything to substantiate this ill founded remark, you ought to publish it. For this would greatly advance the feeble position of the theist whose only recourse at present is to keep chanting, "I know God exists for I have experienced him in my heart!"
Actually, if you really want your book to sell, provide a "cogent" argument (look it up) for your assertion that a god exists. I'll be your first customer!
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Andys, the scope of your ignorance inspires me with awe.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
This is correct. To assert religion, qua religion, is either logical or illogical in and of itself is a failure to understand the meaning of either logic or religion. Logic is not concerned with content only form. Religion necessarily entails content which may or may not involve formal argument.
Pick up any standard dictionary and the first definition of logic is "correct inferences," and that is where the whole process of reasoning begins. I am sorry you feel insulted but that is not what was intended. Notice that others have difficulty following what you are saying at times too. The language we all use is and should be the same for atheist as for theist. That is the way I should have said it instead of saying we use our own language. I suppose most atheist use the same language as Christians. Atheist, and perhaps you more than the rest, want to tell Christians what Christians believe. You want to criticize us on what you say Christians believe. How logical is that? However, I have never heard a serious intellectual atheist define logic as common sense, which would be the most unreliable logic of all logic.
Your language seems to be different than most atheist's language. For example, your definition of faith: "Faith is merely a process of wishful thinking in disguise that provides answers which are self delusional and irrational." You became insulted when I quoted from a standard dictionary the real definition of logic and also the first definition of logic given in any introduction to philosophy class. Do you not expect a curt reply from your definition of faith. You make such foolish statements like science and logic do not go together. My friend if science did not use the strictest logic, man would have never invented the wheel. If you are going to berate all religious people as basing their beliefs on pure emotions and the Bible, you'll run out of people willing to listen to your guff. Yes most Christians believe the Bible but for some of us, it is because the Bible confirms what we believe and not dictates what we believe.
Since I have been a member of this forum, I have continued to back up everything I believe with facts and have offered solid premises for my faith. Very few if any atheist have challenged my beliefs. There have bee name calling and slurs. Invariably, atheist like you, say that I don't back up what I say. That is a tactic you have of avoiding the truth. Atheist do have a different logic than the rest of us. That was not said to insult you but to make you realize that we do not think alike. Most atheist in the world use Hegelian logic.You seem to put more religious emotion into the defense of your atheist beliefs than most atheist.
You my friend are the one who makes up your facts and you saying things are not true does not convince people who already know why they believe. By simply not believing in premises that are self evident disqualifies you from thinking past yourself. Your understanding is limited to yourself and your own opinions. But that is alright, I can live with that.
GadFly
Finally ... :yes:
What drivel ... :sleep:
Gadfly
You believe I became insulted when you quoted from a standard dictionary the "real" definition of "logic", and also the first definition of "logic" given in any introduction to philosophy class. (Your words.)
- You don't insult me; you insult yourself by challenging the established constructs of of logic. (But, that is precisely what a gadfly does: "'Gadfly' is a term for people who upset the status quo by posing upsetting or novel questions, or attempt to stimulate innovation by proving an irritant". -Wikipedia)
You ask me to look up the definition of "logic" in a dictionary.
- I ask you to look it up in a book on Logic. Better yet, take a refresher course.
You say, "Atheist, and perhaps you more than the rest, want to tell Christians what Christians believe."
- No. I want you to justify what Christians believe, and not rant about your fuzzy inner feelings.
You say, "You want to criticize us on what you say Christians believe. How logical is that?"
- Again, you betray yourself as one who does not understand the meaning of "logic". I'm past the point of trying to educate you. That's your responsibility.
You claim, "You make such foolish statements like science and logic do not go together".
- What ever gave you this idea? Science most certainly utilizes logic to test hypotheses, for example.
You confess, "... the Bible confirms what we believe and not dictates what we believe".
- Precisely. You have delusional personal feelings to begin with, which are confirmed only by a book that cannot be confirmed.
You boast, "Since I have been a member of this forum, I have continued to back up everything I believe with facts and have offered solid premises for my faith. Very few if any atheist have challenged my belief."
- Well this is your lucky day. I'm challenging your beliefs. Any time you're ready...
You continue, "...atheist like you, say that I don't back up what I say. That is a tactic you have of avoiding the truth".
- Chuckle. I am the one avoiding the truth! As I said (above) "I'm challenging your beliefs. Any time you're ready..."
You observe, "Most atheist in the world use Hegelian logic".
- I am not aware of the result from the latest global pole that supports your generalization. But, if I do subscribe to Hegelian logic, which sought to convert traditional logic into a genuine philosophical science, then how can you accuse me of making "such foolish statements like science and logic do not go together"?
Then, in gadfly fashion, you remark, "You my friend are the one who makes up your facts..."
- What facts are you talking about? Name one fact I have "made up". (Look who is talking.)
Back to more rhetoric, "By simply not believing in premises that are self evident disqualifies you from thinking past yourself."
- What premises are self-evident? Obviously, if there were self-evident premises, they would be evident to me. Right? So I'm waiting to hear which self-evident premises are not self-evident...
Finally, an example of classic projection, "Your understanding is limited to yourself and your own opinions".
You believe I became insulted when you quoted from a standard dictionary the "real" definition of "logic", and also the first definition of "logic" given in any introduction to philosophy class. (Your words.)
- You don't insult me; you insult yourself by challenging the established constructs of of logic. (But, that is precisely what a gadfly does: "'Gadfly' is a term for people who upset the status quo by posing upsetting or novel questions, or attempt to stimulate innovation by proving an irritant". -Wikipedia)
You ask me to look up the definition of "logic" in a dictionary.
- I ask you to look it up in a book on Logic. Better yet, take a refresher course.
You say, "Atheist
- No. I want you to justify what Christians believe, and not rant about your fuzzy inner feelings.
You say, "You want to criticize us on what you say Christians believe. How logical is that?"
- Again, you betray yourself as one who does not understand the meaning of "logic". I'm past the point of trying to educate you. That's your responsibility.
You claim, "You make such foolish statements like science and logic do not go together".
- What ever gave you this idea? Science most certainly utilizes logic to test hypotheses, for example.
You confess, "... the Bible confirms what we believe and not dictates what we believe".
- Precisely. You have delusional personal feelings to begin with, which are confirmed only by a book that cannot be confirmed.
You boast, "Since I have been a member of this forum, I have continued to back up everything I believe with facts and have offered solid premises for my faith. Very few if any atheist
- Well this is your lucky day. I'm challenging your beliefs. Any time you're ready...
You continue, "...atheist
- Chuckle. I am the one avoiding the truth! As I said (above) "I'm challenging your beliefs. Any time you're ready..."
You observe, "Most atheist
- I am not aware of the result from the latest global pole that supports your generalization. But, if I do subscribe to Hegelian logic, which sought to convert traditional logic into a genuine philosophical science, then how can you accuse me of making "such foolish statements like science and logic do not go together"?
Then, in gadfly fashion, you remark, "You my friend are the one who makes up your facts..."
- What facts are you talking about? Name one fact I have "made up". (Look who is talking.)
Back to more rhetoric, "By simply not believing in premises that are self evident disqualifies you from thinking past yourself."
- What premises are self-evident? Obviously, if there were self-evident premises, they would be evident to me. Right? So I'm waiting to hear which self-evident premises are not self-evident...
Finally, an example of classic projection, "Your understanding is limited to yourself and your own opinions".
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Anthony Flew (presumably an accepted source for our atheist friends) in A Dictionary of Philosophy provides the following definition of logic:
In its broadest sense logic is the study of the structure and principles of reasoning or of sound argument. Hence it is also a study of those relations in virtue of which one thing can be said to follow or be a consequence of another. Within this very loosely defined area one can distinguish various kinds of logic according to the kind of reasoning considered and the kind of sentences in which it is conducted.
This is of course a very broad definition, and it is this definition that gadfly appeals to when he claims it is simply "correct inferences." Going this far, we must admit that gadfly has a point.
It seems to me, though, that andys is working with another, more precise definition of logic and saying that religion falls short on that definition. Anthony Flew again:
However, in its narrower sense, logic is the study of the principles of deductive inference, or of the methods of proof or of demonstration. This study is not conducted by collecting data about the ways in which people do in fact argue, for logic is a theoretical rather than an empirical science. It is the study of winning strategies in the game of argument and of legitimate inferences; it is concerned with the possible means of establishing propositions.
Thus "logic" is like studying the strategies and rules of a game (like chess); making inferences is like playing the game. It seems to me that one valid criticism of gadfly is that he's mistaking the game for the rules of the game.
The game of logic (in this sense) is about establishing the validity and soundness of arguments from a deductive point of view. Valid arguments are those whose conclusions follow directly by the rules of inference from a set of premises. Sound arguments are those whose conclusions follow directly from the premises AND the premises are all true.
The problem with this game is that it tends to become less and less useful as we get more and more into the real world. It is not very good with material claims. At least, no argument can have absolutely decisive force when we are making a material claim (a claim about the world rather than an abstract logical or mathematical claim). And here I think we have a reasonable objection to make of andys. He expects the believer, who is making a material claim about the universe, to provide an argument that has the force of a logical or mathematical theorem. Of course, the believer can't do so, and so andys proceeds to mock and jeer.
But science, for example, doesn't require this sort of deductive perfection. Nor does history. Nor does any interesting knowledge endeavour. So why demand it of the believer?
In its broadest sense logic is the study of the structure and principles of reasoning or of sound argument. Hence it is also a study of those relations in virtue of which one thing can be said to follow or be a consequence of another. Within this very loosely defined area one can distinguish various kinds of logic according to the kind of reasoning considered and the kind of sentences in which it is conducted.
This is of course a very broad definition, and it is this definition that gadfly appeals to when he claims it is simply "correct inferences." Going this far, we must admit that gadfly has a point.
It seems to me, though, that andys is working with another, more precise definition of logic and saying that religion falls short on that definition. Anthony Flew again:
However, in its narrower sense, logic is the study of the principles of deductive inference, or of the methods of proof or of demonstration. This study is not conducted by collecting data about the ways in which people do in fact argue, for logic is a theoretical rather than an empirical science. It is the study of winning strategies in the game of argument and of legitimate inferences; it is concerned with the possible means of establishing propositions.
Thus "logic" is like studying the strategies and rules of a game (like chess); making inferences is like playing the game. It seems to me that one valid criticism of gadfly is that he's mistaking the game for the rules of the game.
The game of logic (in this sense) is about establishing the validity and soundness of arguments from a deductive point of view. Valid arguments are those whose conclusions follow directly by the rules of inference from a set of premises. Sound arguments are those whose conclusions follow directly from the premises AND the premises are all true.
The problem with this game is that it tends to become less and less useful as we get more and more into the real world. It is not very good with material claims. At least, no argument can have absolutely decisive force when we are making a material claim (a claim about the world rather than an abstract logical or mathematical claim). And here I think we have a reasonable objection to make of andys. He expects the believer, who is making a material claim about the universe, to provide an argument that has the force of a logical or mathematical theorem. Of course, the believer can't do so, and so andys proceeds to mock and jeer.
But science, for example, doesn't require this sort of deductive perfection. Nor does history. Nor does any interesting knowledge endeavour. So why demand it of the believer?
Dunemeister
You obviously missed my post on the previous page. In it I made clear that I do not demand Gadfly or any theist to provide me with "logical" arguments, since I am quite aware of the limitations of (any) logical system. I proposed that the topic of this thread be worded more clearly and challenged Gadfly to offer evidence that IS NOT "logical".
My words on page 28:
"This question [Why do religion and logic not go hand-in-hand?] is a complex question, since it already answers the presumed question, 'DO religion and logic go hand-in-hand?' Also, what is meant by 'hand-in-hand' is open to interpretation. What should be made clear is that a religion is, in itself, neither logical nor illogical; it is (almost without exception) merely an organization or institution that extols the virtues of a god or prophet whose teachings provide the foundation upon which it rests. It is, rather, the tenets of a given religion that are subject to the charge of 'logical' or 'illogical', not the bureaucratic edifice that exalts it. But what is meant by 'logical'? Is the author, who poses the question, using the word in the strict sense, meaning 'Logic' with a capital 'L', or in layman usage to mean 'common sense'? If the former is intended, the question is not very interesting. It can be settled quickly by professional Logicians who can expose the myriad of invalid syllogisms replete in any religious dogma. However, the question becomes meaningful and much more interesting if we assign the layman's connotation of the word 'logic'. This gives the the question real meat. We are now talking about what is 'real' as opposed to what is ethereally 'valid'. We are looking at the question of veracity through the eyes of the scientist and not the logician. But what question are we now asking?
As I understand it, the author is essentially asking, 'Do the articles of faith and reason go hand-in-hand, i.e., are they compatible?'"
- There. I believe you will agree that I was/am being most accommodating. I have yet to receive any evidence that will satisfy these less "logical", more "scientific" criteria.
You obviously missed my post on the previous page. In it I made clear that I do not demand Gadfly or any theist to provide me with "logical" arguments, since I am quite aware of the limitations of (any) logical system. I proposed that the topic of this thread be worded more clearly and challenged Gadfly to offer evidence that IS NOT "logical".
My words on page 28:
"This question [Why do religion and logic not go hand-in-hand?] is a complex question, since it already answers the presumed question, 'DO religion and logic go hand-in-hand?' Also, what is meant by 'hand-in-hand' is open to interpretation. What should be made clear is that a religion is, in itself, neither logical nor illogical; it is (almost without exception) merely an organization or institution that extols the virtues of a god or prophet whose teachings provide the foundation upon which it rests. It is, rather, the tenets of a given religion that are subject to the charge of 'logical' or 'illogical', not the bureaucratic edifice that exalts it. But what is meant by 'logical'? Is the author, who poses the question, using the word in the strict sense, meaning 'Logic' with a capital 'L', or in layman usage to mean 'common sense'? If the former is intended, the question is not very interesting. It can be settled quickly by professional Logicians who can expose the myriad of invalid syllogisms replete in any religious dogma. However, the question becomes meaningful and much more interesting if we assign the layman's connotation of the word 'logic'. This gives the the question real meat. We are now talking about what is 'real' as opposed to what is ethereally 'valid'. We are looking at the question of veracity through the eyes of the scientist and not the logician. But what question are we now asking?
As I understand it, the author is essentially asking, 'Do the articles of faith and reason go hand-in-hand, i.e., are they compatible?'"
- There. I believe you will agree that I was/am being most accommodating. I have yet to receive any evidence that will satisfy these less "logical", more "scientific" criteria.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
On several occasions, and I think in response to some of your posts, andys, I have provided such. I'll repeat them:
1. Cosmological argument: God is the best explanation for the existence of the physical world.
2. Personal experience. I've experienced God. That proves his existence to me, but of course cannot be evidence for you.
3. Resurrection of Jesus. Jesus claimed to be a prophet of God, and he staked his claim on two predictions: (a) he would be raised from the dead, and (b) Jerusalem would be sacked by Rome within a generation. Those two prophecies fulfilled, it's reasonable to believe his claim that he's a prophet of God. Of course, you can't have a prophet of God without there being a God.
These are of course extremely summary statements, but they all constitute evidence. You might find the evidence not entirely satisfactory, but that doesn't mean it isn't evidence.
1. Cosmological argument: God is the best explanation for the existence of the physical world.
2. Personal experience. I've experienced God. That proves his existence to me, but of course cannot be evidence for you.
3. Resurrection of Jesus. Jesus claimed to be a prophet of God, and he staked his claim on two predictions: (a) he would be raised from the dead, and (b) Jerusalem would be sacked by Rome within a generation. Those two prophecies fulfilled, it's reasonable to believe his claim that he's a prophet of God. Of course, you can't have a prophet of God without there being a God.
These are of course extremely summary statements, but they all constitute evidence. You might find the evidence not entirely satisfactory, but that doesn't mean it isn't evidence.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Would the story about the boy who cried wolf mean any less if we found that he only existed in the story?
edit:- I think I'll post that as a thread, sorry.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Perhaps not. But the case with Christianity is different. If what Christians say about Jesus (he rose from the dead, for example), the entire edifice of Christian faith tumbles to the ground. If Jesus hasn't been raised, then God has not dealt with sin once for all, and evil has the final word. Christian hopes rest on the political fact that God is King. He rules. The evil rulers of the world have been put on notice, and there will come a day when God will take back what is rightfully his anyway. But if Jesus hasn't been raised, the Christian hope is vain.
Very good. Thank you for correcting Andy and I both. We should try to do better. The knowledge we learn and the better we understand our relationship to life will be our reward. God bless. GadFly
pray4me
Active Member
"But he said to him, if they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead." Luke 27:31 If you don't want to believe the bible then you're not going to believe any sign which may come to you no matter what it is. If you want to see proof of his existence look around you. We are each of us creators just as the bible tells us we were made "in the image of God" Look at the inventions and technology we have created the great works of art. Are we to believe that all this just happened that we evolved out of nothing into creators? It makes more sense to me to believe that we were the product of intelligent creation rather than random chaos. I will not ask him to prove his existence to me because I see him in everything I look at. I will question the things which I do not understand completely but know that no matter how much knowledge I obtain, I can never know everything.
Dunemeister
I already responded to your attempts to provide evidence that a god exists (on page 25).
Since you repeated your 'evidence", I shall repeat my rebuttals:
"1. Cosmological argument: God is the best explanation for the existence of the physical world".
- Wrong! The Theory of Evolution accounts for all life on the planet without any need for a mysterious supernatural intervention. For those seriously engaged in the study of the origin of life, sufficient evidence has been found to confirm that the first cells originated by chemical processes involving non-biological components. The focus of science today is finding which path was followed to produce the first cells. The history of science shows that what may have appeared to be a metaphysical problem (like this one) may yield the answers, given the fortitude to discover new facts and increase our knowledge. To reject this rational approach in favour of postulating a Creatorfor which there is no need nor proofserves only to self-destruct the problem-solving process by trading it in for a host of forever unanswerable questions. Postulating a "god" only raises more questions than it answers, and thrusts us back into the Dark Ages. A natural, evidence-laden explanation, William of Ockham would note, is far superior to a metaphysical evidence-lacking explanation.
"2. Personal experience. I've experienced God. That proves his existence to me, but of course cannot be evidence for you".
- Correct! One's personal experiences are precisely that, personal; they defy external testing and therefore do not constitute evidence. You seem to see this point, so why are you bothering with it? Save your personal feelings for Dr. Phil.
"3. Historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. The gospel accounts of the event are the best explanation for it, and those accounts imply the existence of God".
- Wrong! In fact, there is NO historical evidence whatsoever to support the belief that Jesus ever existed. Indeed I have more than enough (real) historical evidence that "Jesus" is a variation of an age-old myth. It is comical that you use accounts in the Bible to justify the historicity of Jesus! One might as well use "The Night Before Christmas" to justify the existence of St. Nick! I love it when I hear, "The Bible is the word of god, therefore there is a god!" (Look up "petitio principii")
You provided the following two arguments in your earlier post: (Have you "seen the light" and retracted them?)
"4. There are moral truths, and the existence of a God who created the universe with a moral purpose (including creating us with a capacity to be responsive to moral truths) is the best explanation for that".
- Wrong! Moral truths do not entail a god. The existence of any truths, mathematical, scientific or moral does not begin to suggest the existence of a dust ball, never mind a supernatural being. Unfortunately for you, moral truths are the best argument I can imagine to relegate god into obsolescence. Moral truths would be absolutely true, which would make a god rather redundant. Once you have the message, say "bye" to the messenger, and hang up the phone.
"5. I'm rather old-fashioned, so I actually take the ontological argument to be stronger than its critics admit".
- Wrong! This antiquated rationale is long dead. St. Anselm's infamous argument (that the idea of God's existence entails God's existence) was refuted for being a "logical" smoke and mirrors. If this line of reasoning were permitted, practically anything you can imagine could be "proved" to exist.
All of these stale arguments fail in one very important respect. They fail to provide evidence. Worse, they reveal an unforgivable lack of appreciation for what constitutes evidence. This is clearly your problem as well. Evidence IS NOT a private feeling of certainty. If it were sufficient, there would be no end to a shouting match: "I'm right, I feel the truth inside me!" "No you're wrong! I've experienced the truth within me!" We'd be like two kids bickering in a sandbox. The only "adult" way to settle arguments is to provide EVIDENCE. Evidence that is observable by all, testable by all, and verified by all.
What part of this do you and all your religious friends not understand?
I already responded to your attempts to provide evidence that a god exists (on page 25).
Since you repeated your 'evidence", I shall repeat my rebuttals:
"1. Cosmological argument: God is the best explanation for the existence of the physical world".
- Wrong! The Theory of Evolution accounts for all life on the planet without any need for a mysterious supernatural intervention. For those seriously engaged in the study of the origin of life, sufficient evidence has been found to confirm that the first cells originated by chemical processes involving non-biological components. The focus of science today is finding which path was followed to produce the first cells. The history of science shows that what may have appeared to be a metaphysical problem (like this one) may yield the answers, given the fortitude to discover new facts and increase our knowledge. To reject this rational approach in favour of postulating a Creatorfor which there is no need nor proofserves only to self-destruct the problem-solving process by trading it in for a host of forever unanswerable questions. Postulating a "god" only raises more questions than it answers, and thrusts us back into the Dark Ages. A natural, evidence-laden explanation, William of Ockham would note, is far superior to a metaphysical evidence-lacking explanation.
"2. Personal experience. I've experienced God. That proves his existence to me, but of course cannot be evidence for you".
- Correct! One's personal experiences are precisely that, personal; they defy external testing and therefore do not constitute evidence. You seem to see this point, so why are you bothering with it? Save your personal feelings for Dr. Phil.
"3. Historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. The gospel accounts of the event are the best explanation for it, and those accounts imply the existence of God".
- Wrong! In fact, there is NO historical evidence whatsoever to support the belief that Jesus ever existed. Indeed I have more than enough (real) historical evidence that "Jesus" is a variation of an age-old myth. It is comical that you use accounts in the Bible to justify the historicity of Jesus! One might as well use "The Night Before Christmas" to justify the existence of St. Nick! I love it when I hear, "The Bible is the word of god, therefore there is a god!" (Look up "petitio principii")
You provided the following two arguments in your earlier post: (Have you "seen the light" and retracted them?)
"4. There are moral truths, and the existence of a God who created the universe with a moral purpose (including creating us with a capacity to be responsive to moral truths) is the best explanation for that".
- Wrong! Moral truths do not entail a god. The existence of any truths, mathematical, scientific or moral does not begin to suggest the existence of a dust ball, never mind a supernatural being. Unfortunately for you, moral truths are the best argument I can imagine to relegate god into obsolescence. Moral truths would be absolutely true, which would make a god rather redundant. Once you have the message, say "bye" to the messenger, and hang up the phone.
"5. I'm rather old-fashioned, so I actually take the ontological argument to be stronger than its critics admit".
- Wrong! This antiquated rationale is long dead. St. Anselm's infamous argument (that the idea of God's existence entails God's existence) was refuted for being a "logical" smoke and mirrors. If this line of reasoning were permitted, practically anything you can imagine could be "proved" to exist.
All of these stale arguments fail in one very important respect. They fail to provide evidence. Worse, they reveal an unforgivable lack of appreciation for what constitutes evidence. This is clearly your problem as well. Evidence IS NOT a private feeling of certainty. If it were sufficient, there would be no end to a shouting match: "I'm right, I feel the truth inside me!" "No you're wrong! I've experienced the truth within me!" We'd be like two kids bickering in a sandbox. The only "adult" way to settle arguments is to provide EVIDENCE. Evidence that is observable by all, testable by all, and verified by all.
What part of this do you and all your religious friends not understand?
Gadfly
Please restrict your admissions of being incorrect to yourself, as well as your intention to improve (improve what, I have no idea). Who appointed you judge and jury of the forum?
"Thank you for correcting Andy and I both. We should try to do better. The knowledge we learn and the better we understand our relationship to life will be our reward".
I would be most amused if you could indicate which point(s) you consider me shown to be incorrect by Dunemeister.
Please restrict your admissions of being incorrect to yourself, as well as your intention to improve (improve what, I have no idea). Who appointed you judge and jury of the forum?
"Thank you for correcting Andy and I both. We should try to do better. The knowledge we learn and the better we understand our relationship to life will be our reward".
I would be most amused if you could indicate which point(s) you consider me shown to be incorrect by Dunemeister.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think evolution can account for the existence or the variety of life that we see. I don't claim to be a fully trained scientist, but I'm simply not convinced that evolution is true. I DO say that it's the best scientific story we have, however, so we're stuck with it, whatever its flaws. But flawed it is.
So, right back at you: WRONG!
They don't constitute evidence FOR YOU. But they constitute evidence for the person who has them.
There are Christian, pagan, and Jewish documents all of which attest to his existence. So once again, right back at you: WRONG!
Well, that depends on what you take to be a moral truth. Most naturalists play fast and loose with the word "moral", and I suppose you do, too. For a truth to be moral, it must be both universally applicable and must express an actual normative standard. Unfortunately for the atheist, "what is" does not entail "what ought to be" and therefore atheists cannot account for the existence of real moral truths. For naturalists, "morality" can be normative or objective, but not both. But for a truth to be moral, it must be both. So right back at you: WRONG!
I know the problems with the argument, but I'm not going to hijack this thread by debating it. The argument has gained some resurgence of late, and I find that the argument has some merit. My point is only that Christians DO have evidence. You just don't like it or find it compelling.
No, they all provide evidence. You just don't find it compelling. Take the example of a courtroom in which the verdict is "not guilty." Presumably, the prosecution provided evidence for the jury to consider. Does a "not guilty" verdict mean that the prosecution, despite what they thought they were doing, didn't really provide evidence? Absurd! Similarly, Christians provide evidence, but atheists say "not guilty." They don't find it compelling. Christians do.
It is not we who are failing to understand.
Charity
Let's go racing boys !
Andys Dunemeister's friends aren't religious, that term could be applied to anyone who worships a God.........PLEASE CALL US CHRISTIANS, because we know what God we serve...
Both sides have done a good job defending their stand on Logic vs Religion remember this is just your opinions . Go to your corner and wait for the bell and come out swinging on the next round. :slap:
Golly guys you are wearing me out you all put more energy into this debate than watching a sporting event......WOW
Both sides have done a good job defending their stand on Logic vs Religion remember this is just your opinions . Go to your corner and wait for the bell and come out swinging on the next round. :slap:
Golly guys you are wearing me out you all put more energy into this debate than watching a sporting event......WOW