My latest infatuation with logic.

[windsurfer-sp]

Ok this post will be part personal story, part Discussion.

Personal side:
I have grown up in Christian house hold and have always held beliefs based on my up bringing. On some level, they always felt right and for the most part have been sure of them.

Over the last few years I have matured a little and my thought process, while never dependant, has become far more independent (in part thanks to posts made on this board etc...).

Anyway lately I went to a Christian book store and picked up a book I have been meaning to grab for a while. "Christian Apologetics". What I found it to contain were a series of logical proofs for many of my beliefs that I have held so dear.

Something that I have come out of it with is a new found appreciation of the incredible beauty of logic. It is so moving and powerful. There is something so exciting about gaining understanding, appreciating things that were once abstract.

The Critical Thinking Side:
Why do we as humans find such a joy and beauty in logic? Can we really ride it off as purely evolutionary? As purely survivalist?
I obviously believe that this side of our being is a gift from God, I believe that we are given an ability to understand so that we can appreciate and take awe in the awesomeness in our creator. How can one with out the ability to think enjoy? How can one with out the ability to think praise and love?

Clarification: I do not want this thread to turn into a religious thread or a creation versus evolution.

I just want a discussion on the joy and beauty in logic. Where it possibly could have came from and why?
Yes we will all come into this with our biases but that what makes this a (rational, calm, respectful…) discussion.

[devonin]

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.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by windsurfer-sp

Anyway lately I went to a Christian book store and picked up a book I have been meaning to grab for a while. "Christian Apologetics". What I found it to contain were a series of logical proofs for many of my beliefs that I have held so dear.

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.

[devonin]

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.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by devonin

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"

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.

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.

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."

[devonin]

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

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

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.

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"

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by devonin

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

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.

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"

yeah whatever bro i still say that banana **** is ridiculous and i will point out the ridiculousness of it in any opportunity i get

[windsurfer-sp]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Faith simply can't hold up to the rigors of science and people on both sides who attempt to do so are annoying.

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.

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."

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.

[windsurfer-sp]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

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.

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

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by windsurfer-sp

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.

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.

And as far as I am concerned most of what I believe can be logically backed up to some degree.

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.

Originally Posted by windsurfer-sp

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

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 ****.

[windsurfer-sp]

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.

[windsurfer-sp]

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.

[windsurfer-sp]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics

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".

[Squeek]

Originally Posted by windsurfer-sp

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.

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.

[windsurfer-sp]

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.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by windsurfer-sp

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.

I'll stick to the rules here and not turn this into a religion thread or a evolution thread, but there's a good basis for discussion here if people stay on track, so I'll comment on this.

Everything in the universe being causally linked is a fair argument to make. Mentally, it might not be entirely correct on the quantum level of the universe, but either way I think there are ample reasons to argue this is in fact the case - everything in our universe has a cause.

So, there would have to be an initial cause. There would have to exist some irreducibly complex portion of reality that 1. If reduced further would result in nothing or 2. Would result in the inability to cause anything.

However, jumping out and saying "Therefore, God" is a bit of an odd conclusion. The 'cause' could be one of many different things. Does that mean God is an ambiguous concept - a filler word used to describe what we don't know? In that case I won't disagree with you.


Scientifically, it's quite clear that the initial 'cause' within our universe was the Big Bang. The big bang was not an initial atom per say - there was no real mass in the original universe. Rather, it was only energy, and the big bang was a rapid expansion of that energy which therein created space and time, and thus space-time. All matter was subsequently created from the big bang (An easy way to understand this is through E=MC^2 - Energy is mass, but manifested differently...they are equivalents but not manifestly the same thing, so they can be exchanged).


So, God put the initial cause of the Big Bang into place? That still doesn't tell me what God is. God could be quantum mechanics under this ambiguous definition. Along the lines of what Squeek said, if there was an initial system, it would have by definition some energy associated with it, and also by definition this energy would be subject to indeterminate subtle changes or fluctuations on the quantum level. These fluctuations would happen infinitely in number, all simultaneously in the absence of time to differentiate between quantum events, and if one of these vaccuum fluctuations was large enough, in theory it could cause the energy around it to rush in opposite directions.

And thus we have the Big Bang.

So, in conclusion - I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just think your argument is empty and unspecific. God could be anything in your argument. It's a classic 'God of the Gaps' argument, where God is some undefined process or thing that explains what we currently cannot explain.

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.)

Again, my problem with this is that our definition of God is ambiguous and unspecific. If God is not created he could be anything, such as energy itself (From Thermodynamics), and thus I see no reason to refer to it as God (Just call it the First Law of Thermodynamics, or Energy). He could also be Quantum mechanisms, other various laws or theories, or something we currently don't understand.

None of this has *anything* to do with Christianity...and thus my objections. If you want to start talking about Quantum Christianity I suggest you just start studying science instead of ripping off facts from science and twisting them to fit a preconceived world view :P

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by windsurfer-sp

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.

That's not a logical support of ANYTHING based in religion.

All you are doing is saying "there was something before the Big Bang" and "I believe that something is God". There is no evidence suggesting your conclusion, but your own existing beliefs build the conclusion for you. You know that what came before the Big Bang is unknown and you believe in god, so you draw the conclusion that it was God. If it was logical, it would not be built upon a belief without evidence.

Basically, if the idea of God never existed, the idea would never even enter the equation here. No one would be trying to think of what came before the Big Bang and say "I know! A supernatural being who is omnipresent, omnipotent, all-knowing, and invisible did it!" If the concept of God had never been invented that would be looked at as an absurd explanation of what caused the Big Bang. Reason? There is no evidence to point to that being the cause.

Originally Posted by windsurfer-sp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics

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.)

If their ending point is still completely in line with Christianity, then this would be an example of them starting at the finish and working backward. Sort of what you did with the Big Bang example. You're taking the thing you already believe to be true and working backwards to get to it.

And I'm not even going to bother looking at the thing you pointed to because I don't feel like facepalming at all the stupid crap they put forth that they use to try to prove that a man is a god, even though he's been dead for thousands of years, they've never met him or met anyone who has met him, and they've only read about in a mostly anonymously scribed book that was written hundreds of years after the guy was already dead. I'm annoyed enough by the pseudoscience I've seen from people trying to prove a banana HAD TO HAVE BEEN INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED to fit in a human's hand. There's no way the banana could have coincidentally formed in that size and there is absolutely no way that the plant could have evolved that trait after an extended period of time wherein natural selection would have made the fruit grow at a size where more animals would be more likely to eat the fruit.

It really does sound that you have a problem with simply taking things on faith even though that is the point of religion, and if that is the case, religion is probably not for you. Maybe you should have a look at humanistic atheism. That'll give you all the great things religion can without expecting you to believe things which are unverifiable. And best of all, you won't look silly trying to prove to atheists how logical you are being in your unverifiable beliefs.

ps

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.)

No, that's not logical, because your taking a leap of faith at the very beginning without saying so. You're assuming God is a real thing without evidence suggesting it, then you're using that assumption to build upon into something else. You are taking God as a given; that is simply not the case.

pps hi rech ur rly smart

[windsurfer-sp]

Originally Posted by Reach

None of this has *anything* to do with Christianity...and thus my objections. If you want to start talking about Quantum Christianity suggest you just start studying science instead of ripping off facts from science and twisting them to fit a preconceived world view :P

Not at all, but logically this means there has to be some sort of something that created the universe. This is just one of many foundations of which are very necessary to logically explain Christianity.

I can't go through them all, but a book of apologetics can. This was just an example to show how logic can be outside science. And its great to start off with the fact that there is something outside of materialism to kill off this Science word contradicting faith.

Now to start with Afro's post....

[windsurfer-sp]

Afro, alot of your post seems to be rather close minded and an attack at religion in general and an attack at my credibility and the credibility of what is at hand. I don't see why this argument has to be personal.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

No, that's not logical, because your taking a leap of faith at the very beginning without saying so. You're assuming God is a real thing without evidence suggesting it, then you're using that assumption to build upon into something else. You are taking God as a given; that is simply not the case.

That quote you have taken there was after the proof of causality, the proof that the universe and time need a beginning, from there I expanded on the idea that if something created time, the creator of time can not be part of time and thus can't be created.

Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument. It's just simple logical look at the need for there to be something outside of the universe. You don't need to tie it to Christianity.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by windsurfer-sp

Not at all, but logically this means there has to be some sort of something that created the universe. This is just one of many foundations of which are very necessary to logically explain Christianity.

I can't go through them all, but a book of apologetics can. This was just an example to show how logic can be outside science. And its great to start off with the fact that there is something outside of materialism to kill off this Science word contradicting faith.

Now to start with Afro's post....

Right, some sort of something. I agree. Still, my point remains - you nor I know what that is, and there are *MANY* different options here.

I've read all of this material, and the vast majority of books and arguments on these topics before. It was an obsession of mine for years when I was a Christian. I understand where you're coming from.

I think the problem here is this: If you wanted to objectively show that Christianity was the one and only universally true world view, you've got a hell of a lot more problems then simply dealing with the origin of the universe. Even if you could objectively show the prime mover in the origin of all creation was something equivalent of a mind with processes differentiating it from simple laws of mechanics, this has very little connection with Christianity. The entire foundation of Christianity is based on Jesus and his teachings and the LORD and the word he has laid out for mankind through his son - most of which is contained in the bible (NT, since Christianity shares the OT or Torah with Judaism).

And you're going to run into problem, after problem, after problem trying to logically demonstrate any of this as being literally true. Metaphorically or allegorically true, sure, you could argue that creation is allegorically true, but how that relates to reality remains ambiguous and unexplained. You'll run yourself into circles forever.


Anyway, I don't want to get too into specifics here, since this isn't a religious discussion per say, but all of my points made from the previous post stand.