-
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
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
Too deep for you? :faint:
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
About as deep as a blow-up kiddie pool.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
I thought so, too. I was being nice. I didn't want to me so mean as to say Melissa G might drown in a kiddie pool.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Rolling Stone, Melissa and any other petty snipers, would you quit? It's annoying and boring. If you have anything substantive to say, please do so.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I don't think it was the depth that got her. I think it was the incoherent nature of it.
Melissa religion is the expression the way people think life is and should be lived. It only helps a person while that person is alive. If you think that life should be lived like a pagan, and you say you are a false pagan, than you should live life that way. That would be logical for you to do and would be based on what you thought would be real. That would be your religion and logic would have brought you to that place.
I see a greater utility in logic, math, science, physics, art, music, and love than simply what each of these do. The fact that these exist without us and is in no way dependent on us, but these in fact depend on rules outside us, is a type of evidence of something not seen but we do see these as self evident facts of something greater than what we see. Right? Clear as mud. Believe it or not that is one of the Biblical definitions of God. Doesn't that make you curious even if you are a pagan? To ignore that statement and fact is a very large jump in logic. This definition of God is a religious statement and it goes beyond superstition because you yourself experience the evidence of God each tome you play music or dream of love. See religion is closer to you than you ever imagined and you are not superstitious at all.
GadFly
Melissa G
Non Veritas Verba Amanda
Nothing is too deep for me, apart from superficiality.
Melissa G
Non Veritas Verba Amanda
Sure, the level of discussion here is enough to put anyone to sleep.:sleep:
Melissa G
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
You said:
Okay. Logically, approaching life from a sense of "self" is "irrational superstition without any foundation in reality," too.
What you said wasn't deep, it was down right insulting... or at least seemed that way to me.
I heard a pastor being asked on a tv documentary why he believes there is a God. He said the undeniable truth that God does exist is simply to look at our world and everything in it...for example, the lakes, rivers, mountains etc. This is undeniable proof that God exists because these things couldn't exist unless created by god...it would be impossible.
It's weird because to me, this doesn't prove that God exists. I see the same things the pastor does, the beauty of the Earth, but to me, this doesn't even begin to show any proof whatsoever that God exists. Amazing how two people can see the same thing, but come up with two completely opposite opinions, huh?
It's weird because to me, this doesn't prove that God exists. I see the same things the pastor does, the beauty of the Earth, but to me, this doesn't even begin to show any proof whatsoever that God exists. Amazing how two people can see the same thing, but come up with two completely opposite opinions, huh?
pray4me
Active Member
Yes I do think that is amazing. I also think it's amazing that anyone thinks that religion is illogical.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
So, you would not consider the thoughts of that pastor illogical?
Alex_G
Enlightner of the Senses
Religion is a belief system. Logic is an umbrella term for a cognitive method of arriving at a conclusion based on ones own knowlage. The reason they dont go hand in hand, is that everyone will have slightly different logical perspectives, and inevitably will have conflicts of view regarding a fixed subject. This is especially true regarding philosophical and linguistical logic, as they are more volatile in nature and more suseptable to semantics. Mathamatical and scientific logic, which possess clear cut rules, demonstrate this to a lesser degree, and is considered one of its strengths.
It to me boils down to inductive logic vs deductive logic. Thiestic ideas are skewed towards this inductive, a priori reasoning. Because these 2 logical pathways are fairly mutually exclusive, there is going to be conflict. I personally find inductive reasons to be unreliable, and dubious at best, and i obviously think that because my logic doesnt comply with that which creates many religious ideas, demonstrating the clash of 'logic' and 'religion'.
Not sure why i'm 40 odd pages late in posting here
eh well...
pray4me
Active Member
Not at all! I consider a painting proof that it had a creator. Someone took a paintbrush and paints and put it on the canvas. Do you think this is illogical? I think the pastor's point was very logical.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I do think it's illogical. If you saw a big stone in the form of a chair in the mountains, would you assume it was made by humans? The universe could be the result of an intelligent creator, but it is illogical to assume that it must be the result of such a thing.
pray4me
Active Member
It's not illogical to see wonder vast and beautiful and think that is proof of a creator. The paint on the painting could have got there accidentally in just the right proportions to make a great work of art but it is illogical to think that it did. It is logical to think that someone created it purposefully that way.
As for your stone chair argument, I have this to say: A stone in the shape of a chair would be a very rare thing to see but beauty is not. symetrical beauty is not rare at all. You see it not only on this planet but in the vastness of space and pictures we now have of the other planets in our solar system as well. If you saw a round table and twelve chairs made out of stone would you assume that they were made by nature or man?
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
OK, you're welcome to think that God created everything. I'm not going to say you're wrong. But you are wrong to think the idea that God must have created the universe is logical. There are many possibilities as to the cause of the universe, of which intelligent design is only one. The universe could point to intelligent design or it could point to non-intelligent design. It is not the evidence for either cause, in and of itself. You would have to say "The universe is proof that God exists because...", and "Just look at the wonders of the world and of space" doesn't cut it either. You would need to explain why those things can't exist without an intelligent creator.
pray4me
Active Member
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm also welcome to think it's a logical arguement. Logic is synonomous with reasoning. It is very reasonable to say that the universe is so beautiful and so symetrical and so orderly that it is a logical conclusion that an artistic creator had a hand in it's design. I do not see what many other possibilities there are, maybe you could enlighten me.