Religion and Logics

[DaVinci]

Logics and Religion belong to the same universe: metaphysics.

The first scientists were all religious men, no matter if Pagans or Christians.

Believe me: before talking of such matters you should read more, a lot more.

There are theories and theses about that. Do you wanna contribute to the thread with this direction, then do so, or prefer to make rather empty statements?

The rest is not worth commentation.

DaVinci,

My preconceived notions and belief comes from God Himself just as He had Moses inform the Israelites and then us of. Why even the most atheistic scientists admit now that creation had a beginning and that the complexities of what we now see and know some are coming to the conclusion that design is the integral portion that they didn't want to admit to but now cannot avoid it. Perhaps it is with most scientists that they lock themselves away from the world too much, never seeing what the average bloke does and so misses out on the simple little unexplainables that God does in everyday life for those that know him as well as those that don't, them seeing it yet not understanding. Perhaps instead of challenging science they should challenge God personally.

As expressed already, i have understanding for your view, or die-hard belief. Just don't expect, that people who are not on this same level give you any credit.

And still a note to theme scientists about you are talking. Who or what gives you the certainty to judge on them, fe. how can you know, what they believe or not, about "god and the world"? I tell you, a typical scientist won't claim with certainty that there is or is not a "god-like" force behind everything or particular items, he won't exclude options until a theory can stand its ground. Merely exactly this super-question runs him (or started him once in his life to try nature-science), but his methods are not faith/belief dogmas but working for increasing the knowledge about according items. The very nature of science is to research, you know? What most scientists but unites is, that they don't believe in the abrahamic bible-made up "ferrytales", but take just this old book and other sources as research objects (instead of what you are doing, taking it for granted and holy).

Bold part: Source, please.

[basics]

DaVinci,

My source for the emboldened print is youtube where there are many but this one is headed " science has found proof of God." There comes a time in life when one searches for what is right and what might appear to be right and so for the past thirty years I have accumulated many books by scientists who believe in the Biblical version of creation and that belief on their years of study into the science. DNA is but a fine example of something that had to be designed simply because it is a coding that chance could never have made happen. The wonderful thing is that the Bible is also a coded collection of books which have other codes deeper within it that only a Designer could have inserted. The thing is that the Scriptures have stood their ground since Moses put pen to paper and still do and will right up until the day Jesus Christ comes back to make an explosive new creation which every man and woman who ever lived will witness but not necessarily get to be in. So, for you my friend there is still time.

[DaVinci]

Is good. I'm out. From this thread.

A pro-tipp still: Making up a (proper) mind requires study of both "sides" (start with Planck, go on with Einstein, and land fe. by Hawking, and much other contemporary nature-science theorists, who research forces and the universes; if you through with this act, go into the whole field of archeology, or vice versa). Look, i was member of the protestant church, baptised and confirmed.
Oh, and btw., Jesus as person was just alright, a social revoluzzer deeply inspired by his god-belief and observation of the injustice. So far what is assumed as researched events around the person. The making-up by the Apostels is a whole other (phenomenal) story.

[basics]

Is good. I'm out. From this thread.

A pro-tipp still: Making up a (proper) mind requires study of both "sides" (start with Planck, go on with Einstein, and land fe. by Hawking, and much other contemporary nature-science theorists, who research forces and the universes; if you through with this act, go into the whole field of archeology, or vice versa). Look, i was member of the protestant church, baptised and confirmed.
Oh, and btw., Jesus as person was just alright, a social revoluzzer deeply inspired by his god-belief and observation of the injustice. So far what is assumed as researched events around the person. The making-up by the Apostels is a whole other (phenomenal) story.

DaVinci,

Jesus said that for a man to enter the kingdom of God he must be born again of the Spirit of God. Clearly being baptised or christened and confirmed does not make one born again as it is a personal one on one with the Spirit of God. I too was once baptised and confirmed yet I had never experienced being born again until that evening God put me on my knees and did change my life from that point on. Jesus proved this when He spoke in parable about the wheat and the tares or the sheep and the goats because what He was saying that the one doesn't know Him nor Him them whereas the other does know Him and Him them. Since many of whom you highlight are not even in the fold never mind being frauds how would they possibly know whether there is a God or not?

[strategist.com]

Religion is only logical when you don't consider all other knowledge and information available. Some of the most influential thinkers and philosophers are theologians or at least studied theology such as Thomas Aquinas and even Charles Darwin. Religions make sense during their time setting in an attempt to explain the unknowns but when we have made so many new discoveries and knowledge of other culture's beliefs that contradict one religion, how could religion still be considered logical? Science debunked much of religious myths and considering that there are other religious beliefs contradicting one another, the whole concept of religion defeats itself. Theists might argue with solipsism and similar epistemological tools to give credence to themselves as being logical and philosophical but they can't be both or either if theists ignore objectivism and empiricism.

All those being said, religion is basically a resignation of logic.

[basics]

Religion is only logical when you don't consider all other knowledge and information available. Some of the most influential thinkers and philosophers are theologians or at least studied theology such as Thomas Aquinas and even Charles Darwin. Religions make sense during their time setting in an attempt to explain the unknowns but when we have made so many new discoveries and knowledge of other culture's beliefs that contradict one religion, how could religion still be considered logical? Science debunked much of religious myths and considering that there are other religious beliefs contradicting one another, the whole concept of religion defeats itself. Theists might argue with solipsism and similar epistemological tools to give credence to themselves as being logical and philosophical but they can't be both or either if theists ignore objectivism and empiricism.

All those being said, religion is basically a resignation of logic.

strategist.com,

And, what if you had spent the best part of forty years running different factories, studying military history, surviving through various ilnesses and injuries as I have? Are you trying to tell me I am ignorant of what is logical or the opposite? What happened with me and God is now perfectly logical yet in those forty years I never knew that He had something special in store for me. I too thought I had it all, flying around hiring and firing as I went because it all seemed so logical that my makeup made it that way but God had other ideas on the matter. Then the illogical set in, in the way of dreams and visions that when turning out to be real defied any logic. Of course if one is on the outside looking in or trying to look in then it doesn't come as any surprise that you would post in the manner you did. So, I would say to you that you are not being logical by writing off what others have experienced especially as you haven't. Dr Luke on behalf of a friend investigated the events that circulated in his day and found enough to know that they were true as did I in mine.

[strategist.com]

And, what if you had spent the best part of forty years running different factories, studying military history, surviving through various ilnesses and injuries as I have? Are you trying to tell me I am ignorant of what is logical or the opposite? What happened with me and God is now perfectly logical yet in those forty years I never knew that He had something special in store for me. I too thought I had it all, flying around hiring and firing as I went because it all seemed so logical that my makeup made it that way but God had other ideas on the matter. Then the illogical set in, in the way of dreams and visions that when turning out to be real defied any logic.

As always, you did not address any of my points and even proves my core point that theists' arguments in relation to proving the existence of god are illogical.

I am going to be unapologetic and call your experience mind or tripping which could be explained by science from the use of mind-altering drugs to brain damage etc.

Believing in Yahweh is as valid as believing in Zeus (i.e. no evidence). I am agnostic/ignostic and I don't dismiss there could be a god although not in the metaphysical and spritiual sense. However, the existence of human conceptualised gods is very unlikely. There is no logical reason to believe in a god other than to provide a natural antidepressant for humans. Having said that, suicide rate of atheists is higher than theists and we can tell why. I am all for freedom of worship but regardless, I value reason more than unsubstantiated faith so I call out whenever I see one. One can argue that his/her experience is different ya di ya to justify beliefs but nonetheless a spade is a spade especially if the objective truth presents itself.

[basics]

strategist.com,

As I have said before and say again the proof of the pudding is always in the eating. It is quite clear that you personally have not had any communion with God making it quite clear that you don't know what you are talking about outside of your own mindset. You are making assumptions based on what you have never experienced. Put this way, if I could give you just one month of my life's experience of the miracles I have witnessed first and second hand, you would have a completely different attitude as I have seen on the faces of other unbelievers when confronted by them. You see us Christians don't just hope in miracles, we expect them no matter the size as an everyday occurrence.

I'll give you an example that had doctors completely baffled when they saw the results of what happened. We had friends, Neil and Karen who had two boys and a lovely little girl named Fiona. Fiona has twisted, squint eyes, that literally crossed and nothing that doctors or specialists could do could correct them. At that time I was not long a Christian but was invited to RAF Kinloss's Christian Fellowship attended by one Squadron Leader, one Nimrod Pilot, one Nimrod Navigator and other mixed airmen. Neil himself was not a Christian although a Seargent Armourer at nearby Lossie. Karen was as Christian as one could get.

Anyhow, one day Karen asked the fellowship to have a laying on of hands for Fiona as a last resort and i was invited to attend which I pleaded out of since i at that time was quite sceptical abot miracles then. As it turned out that was to be my shame which has never gone away. The morning after and me working at the counter in our dry cleaning shop, Neil's face appeared round the door and boy was he beaming. He asked if we had heard about Fiona? I replied, " no but where is she?" " Outside in her pram," he replied. " Bring her in, " which he did turning to lift her out of it and handing her to me. I looked as she did to one another and her eyes were as straight as yours and mine. Neil said that they had just come up from the surgery where a room full of doctors and nurses just gazed at the wee soul in unbelief. He told them of the night before but they were struggling to take it in as medically there was no explanation for it.

Anyway, a few weeks later Neil was posted down to the Falklands and when he was down there he had a revelation from God that changed his mind and nature forever. Karen was over the moon as she now had her wee daughter healed and he husband saved making them one very happy family thanks to the Lord Jesus Christ. Since that time I have seen and experienced much more so unsubstantiated faith doesn't come into it at all. Jesus can do for you what He has done for millions of others so there is still time to find another side of life that you haven't seen before.

[strategist.com]

@basics

Well I am not a doctor but how old was the baby? Most babies are cross-eyed when up until about three months. http://www.pregmed.org/baby-developm...can-babies-see Did you ever think that perhaps the eyes had weak muscles or something and that the eye muscles finally became strong especially if Fiona's development is delayed? We are all born with weak muscles and that does not enable us to walk straight away. It doesn't mean a supernatural deity suddenly enable us to walk at a certain age by magic. My little brother had his first walk when he was only seven months old and sure enough he is a big man after all now he's grown up. It doesn't mean Jesus suddenly made him walk at a young age. Moreover, some babies don't speak either until later but it doesn't mean they have incurable problems and there could have been many factors that has been overlooked or simply undiscovered. And why do you think it was Jesus and not Zeus or Quetzalcoatl who did the miracle? Of all the thousands of gods thought to exist and you could have thought to be responsible for the supposed miracle, why Jesus specifically? You live in a Western Christian nation so by heuristic you happen to attribute the so-called miracle to Jesus. In near death experience, Christians see Jesus and Hindus see Krishna (I forgot what the Japanese see) due to respective cultural conditioning/socialization of their environment. Either way, there is no proof and as such believing in Yahweh is just as valid as believing in Zeus.

Apply some Occam's razor man. There are plenty of reasonable explanations and again, you prove my point that theists don't apply logic and do not consider all the possible or compounding factors to situations and immediately rely on heuristic, which science says that humans tend to do and is natural (but illogical to do so in many cases). As with theists they use logical fallacies, and in your case using appeal to emotion. Speaking of which, my interaction with Christians typically apply this tactic to convert people. I was told once by a guy to believe in Jesus because he was the only god who sacrificed himself for mankind. Heck the Aztec gods actually sacrificed themselves for humanity and Prometheus also sacrificed his life to give fire to humans. He also said to just believe and mentioned that Buddhists believe they will meet Buddha in heaven and Muslims believe they will have sex with 76 virgins so why am I not believing? Now this interaction I had perfectly demonstrates why theists are illogical:

1. It is a salesman tactic (or con depending on one's point of view) to manipulate people into buying or believing in something by offering unique selling points of an idea or a product being offered. It is not necessarily a bad thing but in many cases it is manipulative and ultimately does not benefit the person being sold to.

2. Appeal to emotion. No need to explain.

3.Ignorant of the world and anything outside their bubble (because they don't want to see the truth). As stated, it wasn't only Jesus who sacrificed himself. Also, depending on which sects, Buddhists don't believe Buddha is a god (some Buddhists believe in folk gods) nor do they believe in heaven. Another is that nowhere in the Quran was it mentioned about virgins and this is just something ignorant Muslim extremists believe to justify blowing themselves and others.

To sum up all I have said, this just proves the entirety of my argument that theists don't have logic since they do not consider all the possible objective reasons for occurrences of circumstances nor even consider the objective merit of their beliefs when other beliefs fundamentally contradicts their perceived objective world view. Theists doesn't appear to be introspective enough and/or are afraid to question everything. Hence, referring back to my first post, religion is only logical when one doesn't consider all other knowledge and information available. That is why many religious orders suppress outside knowledge and scientific discoveries throughout history because it undermines their power and on the personal level cause the uncomfortable cognitive dissonance, because their entire world view is collapsing under the weight of reality.

[basics]

strategist.com,

A roomfull of doctors and nurses who had attended that little girl who was around two when it happened and yet they did not try to explain away what they couldn't as you are trying to do does not surprise me. They eyewitnessed the results and had no answer to them and yet here you are making assumptions based on what? These people were doctors and nurses involved in trying medically to correct something that they had given up on. The forces personnel and their wives were highly trained university or college educated people who believed in the power of God and His word which they followed and God answered immediately.

But I'll give you another instance from out of the same RAF Base. A Nimrod had fourteen crew and on this occasion Dave was the pilot, a Christian, while Hugh another Christian was navigator and lastly Mark flight crew and Christian, the three being involved in the Fiona event. After having taken off and heading out across Findhorn Bay all the electrics shut down as did the engines. Dave told me his first reaction was of ditching in the Bay but then he thought, " Jesus, You made this plane so please fix it." The guys around him expected nothing less from him as they were used to his talking to Jesus in flight and to their delight and relief the engines plus the electrics all turned back on. Ground control gave him permission to circle the base a few times whilst more checks were made and without having to land that plane did its tour that night way down into the South Atlantic. That Pilot told me this and it was confirmed by Hugh and Mark. God is real.

[strategist.com]

@basics

Dodging much of my points again eh? You didn't even tell how old the baby was.

There are many medical oddities and conditions that couldn't be explained by science until it did. As such you are using the old "god of the gaps" fallacy to explain things that you can't.

Let's suppose that indeed it was a miracle, how do you know it was Yahweh or Jesus who did it? For all we know it could have been some other god who did the miracle. You could call on Aphrodite to cure any disease and if the disease is cured then you could attribute it to her.

" Jesus, You made this plane so please fix it."

It was humans who made it.
Furthermore, it doesn't mean . There are many devices that malfunction for a brief while but function later on, sometimes couldn't be explained what happened because the cause is overlooked as I said. A famous story of an F-15 flew with one wing. Is that a miracle or just cause of design?

All in all, you are using god of the gaps logic to dismiss something you couldn't explain without considering many reasonable factors as well giving significant meaning into something so trivial. Got any more anecdotes that doesn't address my initial arguments?

Edit: I would also add that attributing coincidences and patterns to supernatural and divine manifestations is what human brains are good at unfortunately. That's why we "see" faces on inanimate objects. I believe you are doing the same by attributing "miracles" and coincidences to divine mysticism when ultimately they're trivial and meaningless coincidences.

[basics]

strategist.com,

Please read my post again and see that I said she was around two at the time. So you are superior to the medics that were treating her and the guys and gals who prayed for her, that to Jesus Christ and no one else. Regarding my second post about the Nimrod, a Christian knows that Jesus Christ not only made all things that are made but that He created the components by which they are made. He sustains all things and so that includes anything that you could possibly think of therefore it is no surprise that we Christians do see the mighty power that He demonstrates in answer to prayer all across this world. Why, He even made the tree that would be His cross of sacrifice. One day you will find out for yourself how wrong you have been.

[strategist.com]

So you are superior to the medics that were treating her and the guys and gals who prayed for her, that to Jesus Christ and no one else.

I'll take your word for it but why do I have a feeling you are not presenting the whole picture? It is either you lack other information in good faith or you are witholding some information to justify your position especially that I have presented very likely reason why the baby was cross-eyed.

Regarding my second post about the Nimrod, a Christian knows that Jesus Christ not only made all things that are made but that He created the components by which they are made. He sustains all things and so that includes anything that you could possibly think of therefore it is no surprise that we Christians do see the mighty power that He demonstrates in answer to prayer all across this world. Why, He even made the tree that would be His cross of sacrifice.

Why shouldn't I believe that it was the four Aztec gods who created everything according to the ancient Aztecs? Why should I believe your word over theirs? Why should I not believe the Hinuds that the universe is a recycle of the previous universe? This is why religion thrives on gullible people. The attitude of religion is basically: "Shut up and take my word for it. No questions ask!"

This also demonstrates my point that theists cover their ears on other information available especially that scientific evidence points that there was no intelligent creator. Contrary to your statement, most of the elements are created by the collapsing stars at certain right conditions.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw.../#65ed259a1aba

One day you will find out for yourself how wrong you have been.

Ah yes the "what if you're wrong" retort, something that theist think is their final trump card when they lost the debate thinking that they will gain the final upper hand by stoking fear on the person, but the answer is so logical that it ultimately turns the table on theists and thus delivering the death knell.



It does not matter whether I can convince you or not especially if you are being wilfully ignorant. But I can say for certain that in the end all will be irrelevant whether you believe in a god(s) and I don't because there isn't.

[Prodromos]

Very nice stories, Basics, and while I'm sure the silent readers understood them as what they are, I think you're better off arguing with a brick wall than with Strategist here.

He is either ignorant or dishonest. He's set the rules of the debate to favor his position from the start. He's implying that any phenomenon can have incontrovertible evidence, that all humans are simply obligated to accept as undeniable proof of objective reality, and if you can't provide this evidence then you lose the debate. Which is either dishonesty or ignorance of what evidence and [the human understanding of] truth are.

Knowledge is mostly faith. Faith is belief based on evidence. You've provided him plenty of evidence. Strategist is going to extreme lengths to dismiss the evidence; as long as it isn't 100% certain that God did it, Strategist says, it is proper to dismiss the evidence as delusional wishful thinking.

He would not impose this ridiculously strict standard to any other matter besides religious faith. Which makes me believe that he has no interest in debating with an open mind. He is dead set that God isn't real, and absolutely nothing you say to him will change his mind.

I mean there is nothing wrong with that per se. Different people can have different approaches and rules for interpreting reality. I just dislike this recent brand of obnoxious antitheism, that pretends atheism is "skeptical", "rational", "reality-based", while religious people are nothing but dumb Neanderthals who worship books written by illiterate cavemen. They only reveal their ignorance and bigotry when they spout that nonsense in public.

[chriscase]

Faith is belief based on evidence.

I'm going to pick this part out because I think it's the most relevant claim you made there in the big picture. I agree that a colloquial meaning of faith/belief is, as you say, an assertion - perhaps of less than absolute certainty - based on observation. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. Absolute knowledge, even of something as reliable as the sunrise, isn't truly mine, regardless of how likely my understanding and experience tell me the sunrise is.

But this is not how many religious people actually view faith, even colloquially. Since this is well worn territory, I'm going to shamelessly quote myself:

I can see that you think your religious faith is reasonable, and - who knows? - maybe it is. However, when we talk about "faith", we generally mean quite the opposite of "reasonable expectation".

To illustrate this, imagine a sporting event. Two teams have been battling out the game for some time in a dead heat, and now, as the clock winds down to the final moments of the event, one team has pulled ahead with a lead that seems almost insurmountable.

Imagine two spectators. One of the spectators is sitting back in his chair, smiling broadly. He turns to a companion and says, confidently, "I do believe we're going to win."

The other spectator has a completely different demeanor. He is straining forward out of his seat, his entire body constricted almost painfully. His hands clasp in a rictus of effort and he closes his eyes periodically, repeating, "I do believe we're going to win."

As an observer of this spectacle, most of us would infer that the first spectator is cheering for the team that is winning, and the second spectator is not. But the key point here is that, while both say precisely the same words, the words mean entirely different things.

Reasonable belief, as applied to the second man's situation, would leave him resigned to the imminent defeat of his team. However, as you say, he has hope. But is it reasonable? Not really.

The faith whose "strength" matters is a wish that goes back to our primitive desire to influence things over which we in fact have no influence. The appeal of last resort is the wish to make reality be as we would have it simply with the strength of the wish itself. This harkens back to primeval belief in magical alliances with supernatural agencies that will reward us for the strength of our mental fidelity to them.

This sort of faith is diametrically opposed to reason. What does my fidelity to a supernatural agency mean if all the evidence indicates the outcome is assured in any case? It means little if anything. Only through belief in an outcome that is extremely unlikely, in the face of evidence to the contrary, can one truly show the strength of one's faith to a supernatural agency. This is the faith that keeps children away from the doctor even when they are deathly ill. And it is this "faith" that I say is no virtue at all.

[Prodromos]

I've already responded to the assertion that religion is unreasonable, illogical, etc. You keep claiming that religion is unreasonable without providing any evidence for it. There's evidence for God, but whether it suffices as "proof" generally varies from individual to individual. Many or most people first hold a position and then look for supporting evidence for it, and of course dismiss any and all contradictory evidence. In this particular case I think our atheist friends first assume that there is no God, and then work from there. The only reason belief in the supernatural seems wrong to you, is because you believe it isn't real. I think you'll find that 90% of the population feel the same way about your disbelief.

[chriscase]

Dr. Legend, I don't see much here in the way of actual reasoning from you. Maybe I overlooked it. You say there is evidence for the existence of something you call God. What is your definition of God, this thing that we can find evidence for? And what is your standard of proof? What is the simplest example we could agree on for establishing that something exists?

I myself am always suspicious of claims that the existence of a thing is somehow dependent on or influenced by a subject's beliefs. Would you agree that, if a thing exists, it does so regardless of whether some other observer "believes" in it or not? And, that, if a thing exists, it exists therefore "for" everybody, whether everybody - or, for that matter, anybody - is aware of it?

[Prodromos]

Dr. Legend, I don't see much here in the way of actual reasoning from you. Maybe I overlooked it. You say there is evidence for the existence of something you call God. What is your definition of God, this thing that we can find evidence for? And what is your standard of proof? What is the simplest example we could agree on for establishing that something exists?

I myself am always suspicious of claims that the existence of a thing is somehow dependent on or influenced by a subject's beliefs. Would you agree that, if a thing exists, it does so regardless of whether some other observer "believes" in it or not? And, that, if a thing exists, it exists therefore "for" everybody, whether everybody - or, for that matter, anybody - is aware of it?

Sure, but what gave you the impression I want to provide evidence for God in this discussion?

[basics]

Guys, guys,

God has had written that in everyone human He has left even just a smidgeon of evidence of His existence so that man can have no excuse for not believing He exists. I believe that is what Paul tells us in the book to the Romans. But, experience of Him is always the better way to accept that yet even that can only be done with the help of God. That is the reason that I take on strategist.com because what I'm telling him is quite true and I am not yet finished should he indulge me some more. Perhaps though the greatest test of God is in our knowledge now of DNA which we didn't have before. The statistics and complexity of it astounds even the most hardened scientists simply because it points to a Designer. That said the faith to accept and believe in Him comes from God which is imputed to all them that are made regenerate or born again this borne out in how they behave as against how they once did. But of course that is all subject to the one on One that God has put in place for them, quite outside of normal human experience. Therefore man's ability to believe comes down to people like me telling of the wonderful things God actually does for them that believe. It's called the Gospel.

[conon394]

I've already responded to the assertion that religion is unreasonable, illogical, etc. You keep claiming that religion is unreasonable without providing any evidence for it. There's evidence for God, but whether it suffices as "proof" generally varies from individual to individual. Many or most people first hold a position and then look for supporting evidence for it, and of course dismiss any and all contradictory evidence. In this particular case I think our atheist friends first assume that there is no God, and then work from there. The only reason belief in the supernatural seems wrong to you, is because you believe it isn't real. I think you'll find that 90% of the population feel the same way about your disbelief.

But the problem you have is not just the Atheist, but the agnostic. The question has already been asked why should I not pray to Athena? Or be Shinto. Do you feel all faith is equivalent or can you prove your one god is right one. That for me is the problem. I accept people have faith but distressingly it leads to both ISIS and Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu, saints and crusades (where people are blandly killed because god will know his own) I find it difficult to cultivate faith in any religion.
If the truth is so evident is seems to to fail in the breech.