My latest infatuation with logic.

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Well, as a starter: You can't say something like "I've read a bunch of proof for my religious beliefs and isn't that great" and then try telling us that this can't "turn into" a religious thread. It already is one.

To the point now: I've read such a book, namely The handbook of christian apologetics and while it certainly puts forward "proofs" to support a number of the faith-questions of christianity, there's a wide gap between "setting forward a proof" and "proving" that I hope you take the time to really think about.

As for the question about logic. For one, not everybody actually finds beauty and joy in logic. Many people prefer not to think about it. They find that applying logic to something they already find beautiful, basically "takes the fun out of it"

But for those who do enjoy logic, and logical proofs, the main reason I suspect, speaking also from personal experience, is that pleasure can be gained from seeing something just -fit- It shows a sense of understanding about the world and the rules it follows.

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Anything which "proves" religion tends to be logical fallacy. In fact, many of them are classic examples of logical fallacies. If I recall, the wikipedia article about logical fallacies uses many such examples.

If you believe it, you might be able to miss it, but that doesn't mean it's a legitimate proof. It's nothing more than a funny way of looking at a belief which fundamentally shouldn't even be proven.

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Well the process of apologetics rarely goes so far to say that it has -proven- most of the questions it addresses. Mostly what it does is respond to the usual counter-arguments that tend to be brought up. Think of it as a "Handbook for dealing with criticism of the faith"

In a lot of cases, it will make use of historical information, or various types of informal logical argument in support of the points it makes, but the general purpose is to be able to respond reasonably (if not, in everyone's opinion, correctly all the time) to questions and objections.

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

To criticize faith with logic is to miss the point of faith completely. Faith is inherently illogical, it's to have faith in something in spite of the lack of proof. Faith simply can't hold up to the rigors of science and people on both sides who attempt to do so are annoying.

Historical information? Like pointing out how the church had subjugated scientific advancements in the past that are now taken for granted as absolute fact?

Informal logical arguments? You mean like THIS BANANA. LOOK AT THIS BANANA AND SEE HOW IT FITS MY HAND PERFECTLY. THERE IS NO WAY THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED UNLESS GOD CREATED IT THIS WAY... I wouldn't call that sort of thing logical at all, although the word "informal" sure fits that sort of argument.

And again, there is no way to respond reasonably to logical criticisms of faith. The only reasoned response to such criticisms is to say "You are right. It is not logical. That's why it's faith, I have faith in my beliefs even though there is no proof of it."

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

No, historical information like historical evidence that various events described in the bible actually happened.

No, formal logic and informal logic are different categories of logical argumentation. You should read up on them before you dismiss them. Generally speaking 95% of the debating that happens in this forum is informal logic. If you go read my sticky about logical fallacies, the majority of them are fallacies of informal logic rather than formal.

You're treating "informal logic" in the same way that you criticize the religious for using "scientific theory"

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

But proving that a single element of the bible is factual doesn't mean anything. If I say on September 11th, 2001 the World Trade Center towers were hit by X-wing starfighters and were destroyed, the fact that certain parts of the story are factual do not mean that any other part of it has any basis in reality. You can't say "secular evidence suggests that the man called Jesus of Nazareth of the Christian bible was a real person", then use that to support a "reasoned" argument that he healed lepers using magical deity powers.

Pointing at historical events that don't require one to believe them on faith don't do anything to "legitimize" beliefs which DO require faith.
yeah whatever bro i still say that banana **** is ridiculous and i will point out the ridiculousness of it in any opportunity i get

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Science can only test the materialistic side of things. Therefore any claim that faith makes on non materialistic things can not be touched by science. So your belief that faith can't hold up to the rigors of science to me is wrong.

Faith is far too broad of a term. Faith can mean a faith in anything. The only side of faith I can personally speak for is the Christian faith. And as far as I am concerned most of what I believe can be logically backed up to some degree.

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Obviously not, but it certainly helps when you know the person you believe to be God to have actually walked on the Earth.

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

It's not a belief that I hold that religion cannot hold up to the rigors of science. It's a fact. Things which are taken on faith are taken on faith BECAUSE the either cannot be tested using the scientific method or because they are effectively disproven using the scientific method.

It's not like I'm sitting here saying "my belief is better than your belief." I'm just pointing out that your belief is unverifiable, and that frankly, that's the point of it being a belief rather than fact, faith rather than reason, religion rather than science.

No, you probably only feel this way because you don't want to think that you believe in something which is illogical. But it's not even "illogical", it's "alogical" (I know it's not a word, just relax). It's aside from logic. It's not that logic is withheld or absent from it, because it was not there in the first place, nor is it necessary or intended. Faith is something that exists apart from logic. Attempting to make your religious beliefs appear to be logical conclusions belittles your own value of reasoned existence by employing faulty reason and also belittles your own power of faith. If you have faith in something, have faith in it, don't try to act like it's a logical conclusion and CERTAINLY don't try to explain to other people how logical your beliefs are.

Does it matter? If you already had faith that the man was the physical embodiment of your deity of choice, you ALREADY BELIEVED HE EXISTED. Factual evidence of him existing shouldn't affect ANYTHING, because your beliefs should have already dictated that the man did exist.

If you need the "help" of knowing that Jesus was a real man in history, then what the **** are you doing in believing the more outlandish stories of the bible? If you can't even functionally have faith that the guy actually existed, what the ****.

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

a) You believe that a man was God who historically walked on the Earth.
b) You believe that a man was God who historically is unknown.

If you are a rational person who wants to logically believe things he knows by faith then which would you choose?
If you wanted to share your beliefs as more logically believable which would you choose?
There is a huge difference.

Also science and logic aren't one and the same. Logic deals with things that rationally make sense. Science deals with data that is interpretable.

Things in Science are logical, thats the less abstract side of logic. But there is also a side to logic that is not scientific as it is not dealing with materialistic data.

Im arguing this case here as you seem to think that anything outside of science is illogical. You seem to be trying to reject any case for logic in anything faith based.

You seem to see faith as the ability to shut ones mind off from reason. Where as I believe that faith is only enhanced with logic.

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Sure, heres a very basic and badly written cause:

Everything in the universe has to have a cause. If we follow back from now to the very original causes of what we have today, we know logically there has to be some initial cause. Therefore by definition God is the initial cause of the universe.

So you could say something had to put that initial "atom" that the universe originally was in place in place. According to the big bang theory.

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.



To be honest hardly understood much more then the intro of this wiki, but this is a good outline of the formal name given to the logical thinking of faith.

If you really believe that you are open minded about the world go out and try to grab a book of Christian Apologetics. They logically go through and try to prove things through logic, not through bible bashing or what have you. They simply start off with a belief of nothing and logically work there way through to Christian belief. (Yes that means most of this is not simply stating the bible and ignoring all else, including going through and logically looking at the beliefs of other religions.)

There is so much crap out there on the net, that I really can't recommend anything on the net off the top of my head. Honestly searching for good Christian material on the web is really hard. Look up Christianity's views on sex in google and read articles of how it is "Biblically advisable to only have anal sex before marriage".

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Well, then you're not going back far enough.

If your God made the Universe, then what made your God?

If you listen to science at all, you understand that trying to discern the starting point of the Big Bang is absurd, because that's also the point at which time began. There was nothing before the Big Bang.

If that's not good enough, please read up on Quantum Physics and how it avoids troublesome matters such as cause and effect, because it will answer your question with a far more logical answer than 'we don't know so god did it'. In Quantum Physics, things just happen. There's no rhyme or reason as to why they happen. These causeless happenings are demonstrable and proven.

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

By definition God always is, if God made our universe including time then he does not need a beginning nor an end. Therefore if God has no beginning nor end then he is not created. (Notice no science was needed here, just logic.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument - Check out the objections and their further counter arguments.