-
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
Critics of religion don't seem to understand that, ultimately, all religion is a "religion of one."
Storm
Not that it's any of my business what your religious beliefs happen to be, but "a religion of one" sounds as odd to me like a society of one. A religion, by any definition I am aware of involves a dogma and rules which are to be followed or obeyed by like-minded members. With no followers (yet) I take it that you are the religion of one's founder.
(Ok, I'm teasing, but I couldn't resist. No harm intended.)
Not that it's any of my business what your religious beliefs happen to be, but "a religion of one" sounds as odd to me like a society of one. A religion, by any definition I am aware of involves a dogma and rules which are to be followed or obeyed by like-minded members. With no followers (yet) I take it that you are the religion of one's founder.
(Ok, I'm teasing, but I couldn't resist. No harm intended.)
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
What I mean is that my theology is sufficiently developed and unique to found a new religion. I don't care to convert people, however. Indeed, I consider proselytizing immoral.
Religion need not be dogmatic.
Thanks for your response. I found the answer for which I was looking. My original comment was a compliment that you have done some research for your Ideas. By learned I mean you have read things. I am interested in how a person arrives at opinions and ideas. Sometimes people have an opinion of what God is and consequentially, his research attempts to find evidence to prove his opinion is correct. Others may first find evidence and concludes from the evidence that there must be a God which is like a certain entity. As in science I believe it is best to be as objective as possible about ones developing beliefs. I believe beliefs constantly change whereas truth does not change. In this sense logic is a truth that does not change.
Logic is defined universally as correct inferences. This is the first definition given in the dictionary and 101 philosophy class. All other definitions and types of logic are add ons and special purposes logic. I Googled on logic and found all types of logic, such as modal logic, pragmatic logic, rational logic, relevance logic, quantified modal logic, and it seemed like thousands of logics, one for each purpose under the sun. The computer science field has created the growth of particular logics used to talk with computers. But actually a new logic was not invented for each purpose under the sun, but each new logic only shared the basic truth about logic that logic is correct inferences. Newness was and is an appearance.
When I heard the atheist on this thread talking about all the different logics, I thought they were saying that they had come up with a new system of logic to challenge and rebuff believers' concept of God. As I reviewed the various logics listed by Google as new logical systems, it was apparent to me that these were the same old philosophies we studied 45-50 years ago in philosophy 101, only dressed up to match modern types and mechanics. Machines were relatively new when I first studied philosophy.The same rules apply today that were identified by Socrates and the ancient Greeks before Socrates and philosophers after Socrates. Nothing has changed. Change is only an appearance still.
The atheist have an interest in coming up with a new logical system because universal and eternal rules of logic is evidence that says there is a God. It is the greatest proof that God does exist. It is the self evident rules of logic that allows the United States to be a nation under God. The existence of eternal rules is one thing that enables believers to stand against the wiles of Satan. If I am going to believe in God, I might as well admit I believe in Satan because atheist are going to chide me and laugh at me anyway.
Atheist will always be the first to deny that there is such a thing as eternal rules of logic. They will always say that the rules of logic change. Once they break this down, they will win the argument that logic and religion are in conflict. I have several times on this forum, without thinking about what was being said, atheist have admitted that logic was just there. If they have time to think about it, they will always say logic developed. To a Christian development is not really real but only an appearance of reality. To a Christian God does not change and change is only an appearance. Well, looks like this would make a good new thread. Somebody want to go for it?
The disadvantage the atheist can not overcome with his assertion that the rules of logic develop is that nothing can be verified as true. If premises change during the process of reasoning, say for example, God becomes a Devil, the conclusion will always be different and threatening. Truth and what is must always remain the same to be able to measure change. If an inch is sometimes an inch and one half an inch, one will never be able to determine how far three inches is. So. if the atheist admits there are stable eternal rules of math, logic, science, and morals, he admits there is evidence for God. If he denies universal rules and says eternal rules change, he can never win an argument that God does or does not exist. His only defense is a swat!
GadFly:slap: bite ye
:cigar: good day
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Thanks for your response. I found the answer for which I was looking. My original comment was a compliment that you have done some research for your Ideas. By learned I mean you have read things. I am interested in how a person arrives at opinions and ideas. Sometimes people have an opinion of what God is and consequentially, his research attempts to find evidence to prove his opinion is correct. Others may first find evidence and concludes from the evidence that there must be a God which is like a certain entity. As in science I believe it is best to be as objective as possible about ones developing beliefs. I believe beliefs constantly change whereas truth does not change. In this sense logic is a truth that does not change.
Logic is defined universally as correct inferences. This is the first definition given in the dictionary and 101 philosophy class. All other definitions and types of logic are add ons and special purposes logic. I Googled on logic and found all types of logic, such as modal logic, pragmatic logic, rational logic, relevance logic, quantified modal logic, and it seemed like thousands of logics, one for each purpose under the sun. The computer science field has created the growth of particular logics used to talk with computers. But actually a new logic was not invented for each purpose under the sun, but each new logic only shared the basic truth about logic that logic is correct inferences. Newness was and is an appearance.
When I heard the atheist on this thread talking about all the different logics, I thought they were saying that they had come up with a new system of logic to challenge and rebuff believers' concept of God. As I reviewed the various logics listed by Google as new logical systems, it was apparent to me that these were the same old philosophies we studied 45-50 years ago in philosophy 101, only dressed up to match modern types and mechanics. Machines were relatively new when I first studied philosophy.The same rules apply today that were identified by Socrates and the ancient Greeks before Socrates and philosophers after Socrates. Nothing has changed. Change is only an appearance still.
The atheist have an interest in coming up with a new logical system because universal and eternal rules of logic is evidence that says there is a God. It is the greatest proof that God does exist. It is the self evident rules of logic that allows the United States to be a nation under God. The existence of eternal rules is one thing that enables believers to stand against the wiles of Satan. If I am going to believe in God, I might as well admit I believe in Satan because atheist are going to chide me and laugh at me anyway.
Atheist will always be the first to deny that there is such a thing as eternal rules of logic. They will always say that the rules of logic change. Once they break this down, they will win the argument that logic and religion are in conflict. I have several times on this forum, without thinking about what was being said, atheist have admitted that logic was just there. If they have time to think about it, they will always say logic developed. To a Christian development is not really real but only an appearance of reality. To a Christian God does not change and change is only an appearance. Well, looks like this would make a good new thread. Somebody want to go for it?
The disadvantage the atheist can not overcome with his assertion that the rules of logic develop is that nothing can be verified as true. If premises change during the process of reasoning, say for example, God becomes a Devil, the conclusion will always be different and threatening. Truth and what is must always remain the same to be able to measure change. If an inch is sometimes an inch and one half an inch, one will never be able to determine how far three inches is. So. if the atheist admits there are stable eternal rules of math, logic, science, and morals, he admits there is evidence for God. If he denies universal rules and says eternal rules change, he can never win an argument that God does or does not exist. His only defense is a swat!
GadFly:slap: bite ye
Out of curiosity, why do you assert that existence of a universal law necessarily points to the existence of God? I have seen you state this over and over, and I just can't understand what makes you think this.
As an atheist your mind is not structured to understand God nor is it structured to accept any evidence of God. The strength of your atheist beliefs is a reflection of the time and effort you have invested in atheism. Whether atheist deliberately and by design, as in your case, or by a side effect of an atheistic life, threatens the belief system of believers in God. The same may be said of believers affect on some atheist. We are talking about a characteristic common to all men. In this respect atheist and theist are more alike than they are different. Both seem to be proud of what they believe.
Christians are, for the most part, settled in their belief and train themselves to think on these things that are common to their faith. They don't set around at prayer meetings and worship services and dwell on what atheist are saying about them. Whenever they are confronted with atheistic ideas, it often comes as a shock to them. When they hear the atheist assert that Christians have no proof of God, not even a shred of evidence, and no reason to believe in God , it comes as a threat. They may have never had a reason to ask the question, is there a God.
Andy from the beginning of this thread makes his contempt known form the very first. He rules out the possibility that there could be a God and wants to know why people people who believe in God will not debate with him. All this is in this thread. You can read it for yourself. However, I have been asking for a conversation with him. Andy is real proud of his beliefs and shows his aggression in pronouncing the weaknesses of many Christian beliefs. That is possibly alright, debate is what this forum is about. After a few post by the GadFly, the GadFly can not get a conversation with him. That's alright too. He is free to talk with whomever he likes.
Meantime, here on this thread, some Christians have to set back and listen, possibly with no answer, to Andy and other atheist criticize their religion. The GadFly believes there is evidence of an Absolute God and we are prepared to back this up with understanding and logic. We are prepared to debate. We are prepare to demonstrate to believers that their faith can be defended, that it is reasonable, and superior to the logic of the atheist. That is one reason our thesis statement has been said over and over again. We want you to hear it, we don't expect you to understand it.
Why do we say universal and eternal laws point to a God? Because these really do. We do not have time to explain why the epistemological theory of the atheist does not leave room in their logic to accept the eternal nature of God, but it does not. We will be happy to explain this in the future.
But this will explain why you are not able to understand us. It is a limitation on the structure of your mind. What has been said by us about the proof of God is not new or original with us. Why have you not heard and understand these arguments before? Why have you not searched these criticisms out? We are prepared to refute every atheistic theory thrown at us. Many people have. Why? Because the theories of the atheist are not new either. Every theory we have heard on this forum, we studied years ago and studied their weaknesses too. Many Christians have not heard the atheist criticized intellectually. A good intellectual debate will bring out the strengths of the Christian arguments.
The atheist says to the believer, there is no evidence there is a God. Of course evidence is not God but it would point to a God. The atheist may require more than one piece of evidence of God. We think he should. The believer points out universal laws of math which do not change and are the same for everybody. The atheist requires still more. The believer points to self evident laws of moral behavior which do not change. The atheist says, give me more. The believer points to universal laws of science that do not change. The atheist still wants more. The theist points to the universal and eternal laws of logic, which do not change, and being stable as such allows men to reason about the same things of reality at the same time. All eternal laws are self evident in sequence and scope and extends universally. Combined together these laws constitutes and is an universal omnisciences. Read in an earlier post in this thread to Andy about our statements about a universe of proof for God's existence. We are sure you already have but if not, read everything the GadFly has written on this thread. That should satisfy your curiosity for now.
GadFly)
cigar::cigar::cigar:
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
:biglaugh:
Why do I say your posts are monumental waste of space?
Because they really are.
Your mind is not structured for the acceptance of your inanity. I don't have time to explain this now, and will explain in the future
One, you were probably doing introspection of your mind and waste of space came up.
Two, I have answered questions like these before and explanations are never enough.
Three, I am really tired and want to talk at another time.
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
Yes, there is a great deal of 'wasted' space in my mind.
This conversation is, for instance, filed under that massive umbrella description.
So the flaw is in us, and not the explanation.
If I have glossed over the explanation in with my mindlessly sarcastic responses, please, direct me to it
Not what you stated at all.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
The problem of self-refutation need not lead to this degree of epistemological chaos. In answer to your questions, no. Logic cannot confirm logic. But it doesn't have to. It's merely an internally consistent rules game. Same goes for mathematics.
Science is still valid because science, when done in a philosophically respectable manner, isn't a theory of all knowledge. It's a system of discovery. If a scientist says "I observe x,y, and z and postulate E as an explanation," she's not doing anything epistemologically untoward. Certainly, she's not refuting herself because she's not using the scientific theory she's advancing to justify her theory. She's using her observations.
Really, the problem is with a foundationalist epistemology. Jettison that, and you've got a decent place to start with a theory of knowledge.
I'll leave alone your faulty analysis of what the Judeo-Christian concept of sin actually means for the moment so we can get on with the conversation.
How are moral statements verifiable? It's verifiable that people have moral sentiments, but how can we verify the truth of "Rape is wrong"? How does it make sense to say that this statement can be true or false? As a Christian, I can at least fall back on the idea that God has created humans in his image for the purpose of sharing his loving communion with all creation. Raping people is contrary to that divine purpose, and it is that violation of the divine purpose that makes the action wrong. (Please note, that I'm not speaking for all Christians. This is just how THIS Christian has, with fear and trembling, thought this through.)
I'm a bit worried that we're taking this thread off topic. Should we start a new one?
Wow, I'm getting quite the intellectual workout!
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
You're saying, "Wow"? At the same time I checked out Dennetts Breaking the Spell at the local library, I also checked out Speaking of Faith by Krista Tippett and, on CD, university lectures on Nietzsche. Dennetts dry, assuming and trivial intellectualism in Breaking the Spell, Nietzsches passionate embrace of lifes tragedy, and Tippetts ability to find meaning beyond the exteriority of religion taken in together is enthralling experience of contrasts: intellect, passion and meaning. Wow! What a ride!
Dunemeister
Please stay on this thread for awhile. We enjoy your writing and your testimony of faith. It helps to solve the problem of religion vs. logic and shows that Christians have reasons to believe that are intellectual in nature. We get so tired of reading sarcasm on these threads. You are a bright spot for the GadFly.
Please stay on this thread for awhile. We enjoy your writing and your testimony of faith. It helps to solve the problem of religion vs. logic and shows that Christians have reasons to believe that are intellectual in nature. We get so tired of reading sarcasm on these threads. You are a bright spot for the GadFly.
Logic and religion do not have to be at odds. Christians and other theist do not have to worry about the short comings of other religious points of views, including the point of view of the atheist. It is not your burden to prove any body's logic or religion but your own, and to your own satisfaction. You do not believe in God for the pleasure of others. The testimony of the Christian is that their religion brings them peace of mind.
Unbelievers and atheist are so structured in their minds that they can not believe in your God. The Christian is taught by the Apostle Paul to testify in the Lord but not to live as the atheist live in the vanity of their mind with their understanding darkened and alienated from God through the ignorance that is in them and blindness. To a Christian, feelings are a type of thinking and Paul claimed atheist were past feelings and given over to uncleanness (false logic) and greediness. But Christians have learned about Christ and have their minds enlightened by God or structured by God(Ephesians 4:11-20). Now atheist will never appreciate what Paul said but that is what Christians were told to believe.
If all this be true, and I believe it to be, don't expect the atheist to explain their epistemological theory. My theory is they have no way of constructing a purely logical system. Therefore, they are bent to attack or challenge yours. If they were to succeed in creating doubt in your mind, that would not improve their logical system and epistemology (theory of knowledge).
Atheist forfeit God from their reasoning process. In doing so they forfeit the neumana world of Kanting philosophy, which Christians call the mind of Christ in us. To the Christians the neumana world is that spark of life and reasoning power mentioned in John one, which also represents all the prior knowledge babies have at birth, which enables babies to add to their learning and to become aware adults. What happens to atheist is that they deny prior knowledge of the neumana, they deny universal law and eternal law, they deny any prior knowledge to experience, and they do all this to keep from admitting their is an Absolute God. That is what an atheist is.
You as a Christian can be proud of your logical heritage and epistemological foundation because it stands on Christ and it stands firm There is no conflict between your religion and logic as this thread suggest there is. The conflict between logic and the atheist is strong and will remain strong until the atheist admits, he missed it.
GadFly, the servant of God.
Unbelievers and atheist are so structured in their minds that they can not believe in your God. The Christian is taught by the Apostle Paul to testify in the Lord but not to live as the atheist live in the vanity of their mind with their understanding darkened and alienated from God through the ignorance that is in them and blindness. To a Christian, feelings are a type of thinking and Paul claimed atheist were past feelings and given over to uncleanness (false logic) and greediness. But Christians have learned about Christ and have their minds enlightened by God or structured by God(Ephesians 4:11-20). Now atheist will never appreciate what Paul said but that is what Christians were told to believe.
If all this be true, and I believe it to be, don't expect the atheist to explain their epistemological theory. My theory is they have no way of constructing a purely logical system. Therefore, they are bent to attack or challenge yours. If they were to succeed in creating doubt in your mind, that would not improve their logical system and epistemology (theory of knowledge).
Atheist forfeit God from their reasoning process. In doing so they forfeit the neumana world of Kanting philosophy, which Christians call the mind of Christ in us. To the Christians the neumana world is that spark of life and reasoning power mentioned in John one, which also represents all the prior knowledge babies have at birth, which enables babies to add to their learning and to become aware adults. What happens to atheist is that they deny prior knowledge of the neumana, they deny universal law and eternal law, they deny any prior knowledge to experience, and they do all this to keep from admitting their is an Absolute God. That is what an atheist is.
You as a Christian can be proud of your logical heritage and epistemological foundation because it stands on Christ and it stands firm There is no conflict between your religion and logic as this thread suggest there is. The conflict between logic and the atheist is strong and will remain strong until the atheist admits, he missed it.
GadFly, the servant of God.
Damn them!
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Do you think that if you say this over and over it will become true?
The Christian's position on this is that if you know the truth, say it often until it is proven incorrect or rejected by all thinking creatures.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Wow, that is news to me. I guess I just don't like a religion that claims to know the truth. I prefer those that know they don't have all of the answers, and are just a guide to help you figure it out for yourself.