I challenge theists here to stop hiding behind the falshood that logic is necessarily the opposite of faith

[David Deas]

The word "Faith" has it's etymological root in the word 'trust'. Thats what "faith" means. 'Trust.'

But why do religious individuals here love playing make believe that faith is necessarily the *opposite* of logic, pretending that neither they nor their religion incorporates logic? Thats patently impossible. Those are two unrelated words, and the opposite of logic would in actuality be randomness.

Consider basic theism:

Good people who believe in God go to Heaven.

Bad people who don't believe in God go to Hell

Thats logic. Plain as day.

Although 'logically consistent' isn't the best way to describe religion, the issue arises because although it's possible to have a logically consistent fictional work, the conclusion is invalid if based on false premises (or elements) as we have here; thus fiction.

[Thanatos]

Wait, whoever said that logic and faith could not go together?

[DarkKnight]

Wait, whoever said that logic and faith could not go together?

Faith is by definition illogical. Faith is belief in something without proof. No logic whatsoever.

[Earl of Rochester]

Religion is illogical because it does not use logical thinking. There is no way you can use logical thinking to come to a religious conclusion. Therefore saying that a religion is the truth is illogical.

Of course there can be logical workings within a religion, but believing in a religion on the whole is illogical.

[NaptownKnight]

Faith is by definition illogical. Faith is belief in something without proof. No logic whatsoever.

As is belief in the big bang and evolution. Wheres your proof?

[Earl of Rochester]

As is belief in the big bang and evolution. Wheres your proof?

Proof for evolution? The fossil record? Viruses evolve every year, now they aren't considered living beings, but the working concept is the same. Not to mention domestication of animals, obviously mankind can 'evolve' animals in thousands of years, it seems rather naive to me that nature can not do it in millions.

[Last Roman]

As is belief in the big bang and evolution. Wheres your proof?

no. there is no belief in those ideas, there is thought that those things happened, backed by evidence.

[LSJ]

Consider basic theism:

Good people who believe in God go to Heaven.

Bad people who don't believe in God go to Hell

Thats logic. Plain as day.

I see a problem there; the statement would be logical, but it is based upon an assumption that there is a heaven and hell, upon which there is no proof. No proof makes belief in something illogical, no matter how true it is. Religious faith involves things that cannot be proven, which is why it is opposite to logic.
It would only be logical if the existence of hell and heaven were proven.

[David Deas]

Faith is by definition illogical. Faith is belief in something without proof. No logic whatsoever.

I'm typing from my cell phone so bear with me.


You're misunderstanding the terms you're using here.

The Universe is a logical existence. If you place a certain input, then you get a specific output. If you place the same input again then you'll get the same output again. There is literally no such thing as "no logic whatsoever" in our Universe. "No logic whatsoever" would describe a state of randomness.

Theism, just as any other concept or belief system, cannot possibly be described as random since it has clearly identifiable causes and associated proofs (such as the Roman Catholic Bible). It's incorrect to use the phrase 'no logic whatsoever' rather than using the term "illogical". The distinction there is not only proper, but incredibly important.

The term "illogic" describes an inconsistency with Universal logic rather than the absence of logic. Faith describes trust, or belief, and it is present where ever belief is present no matter the nature of the proof it rests upon. A belief cannot and does not exist without a proof, irregardless of the nature of the proof, since Human Beings are, along with the rest of the Universe, logical existences reacting in a programmed way to their environment.

[Luftwaffels]

Indeed, Rochester, but not illogical does not equate to untrue.

[Earl of Rochester]

Of course, logical thinking never leads to the correct conclusion, only the conclusion most likely to be true.

By all means any religion could be correct, I would never claim otherwise, though personally non of them have given me a good enough reason to believe in them.

[Oldgamer]

Indeed, Rochester, but not illogical does not equate to untrue.

You took the words right out of my mouth, sir!

David is under the impression that a human construct called logic invalidates faith in the One True God. God transcends time, space, and human ingenuity.

However, for the sake of argument ...

The following is an example of a Valid Syllogism in AAA-1 form:
All M are P.
All S are M.
Therefore, all S are P.

A logician can look at the above syllogism, and see that it is perfectly valid.

Following the AAA-1 syllogistic form, we create the following:
All Logicians (M) are Professors (P).
All Philosophers (S) are Logicians (M).
Therefore, all Philosophers (S) are Professors (P).

The form is correct, and so the syllogism is valid, i.e., it is logical. However, looking at the premises, one can see that not all logicians are professors, not all philosophers are logicians (though they should be!), and not all philosophers are professors. Though the syllogism is logically valid, it has little truth-value.

Since David is likely an atheist (he can correct me if I'm wrong in this), and believes that atheists are the good people, we'll create another syllogism in AAA-1 form.

All good people (M) are atheists. (P).
All bad people (S) are theists (M).
Therefore, all bad people (S) are atheists (P).

It works for me ...

By the way, David's basic premises are that "Good people go to Heaven" and "Bad people go to Hell". But the basic premises of theism hold nothing to do with good people and bad people, and heaven or hell. The basic tenet of Christian theism is to believe in a single God. To discuss whether or not monotheism is logical, David must argue on the basis of theological terms, creating a syllogism which ends with "Therefore, all things which are Monotheism are things which are Illogical."

But if David does what I've prescribed above, he'll be arguing in the same metaphysical realm that all monotheists do, because he will not be able to test any of the premises or conclusions.

And I don't believe that atheists are bad people, for the most part!

[Earl of Rochester]

Following the AAA-1 syllogistic form, we create the following:
All Logicians (M) are Professors (P).
All Philosophers (S) are Logicians (M).
Therefore, all Philosophers (S) are Professors (P).

The form is correct, and so the syllogism is valid, i.e., it is logical. However, looking at the premises, one can see that not all logicians are professors, not all philosophers are logicians (though they should be!), and not all philosophers are professors. Though the syllogism is logically valid, it has little truth-value.

Well of course, logic only works if your assertions are actually true, when talking about making logical decisions its usually assumed you will be using correct assertions, or at least assertions that as most likely to be true.

[Oldgamer]

Well of course, logic only works if your assertions are actually true, when talking about making logical decisions its usually assumed you will be using correct assertions, or at least assertions that as most likely to be true.

Exactly!

And it is impossible to verify the premises of monotheism, because they can't be tested in any reasonable way. But that does not "invalidate" the belief in God. It merely demonstrates the limitations of the human mind when dealing with the concept of God.

It's like an ant who comes across the tire of a Mercedes parked on a driveway. Marvelous though her kind is, how can she possibly perceive the purpose of the object, much less the minds of those who designed, built, and marketed the thing?

If there is "conversation" among the ant-kind, the will be believers and non-believers, and some might even try to disprove the existence of a designer through logic!

How the hell does that work when M above isn't the same as M below?

Caught me in a late-night mistake, Juggernaut! It should read, "All good people are theists." It still doesn't establish absolute truth, though it still works for me!

[Juggernaut]

All good people (M) are atheists. (P).
All bad people (S) are theists (M).
Therefore, all bad people (S) are atheists (P).

It works for me ...

How the hell does that work when M above isn't the same as M below?

[Luftwaffels]

What about my word man? Would I lie to you?

[enoch]

those are some bad logic examples
really bad

[jw1089]

im with you on that one oldgamer. as far as logic goes, honestly, logic tells me that must be something higher, something that is simply... more than what any science or thought pattern can teach. and as for the big bang and the whole evolution bit, can you explain how those happened? and if you can, then what caused that? ect. it all leads back to God in the end. the human mind will never figure it out scientifically, but logically, the only end is with God. just plain and simple. and i readily use logic in everyday life, and im a proud Christian. whoever said that logic doesnt go with Christianity is wrong. thats just stupidity.

[Juggernaut]

im with you on that one oldgamer. as far as logic goes, honestly, logic tells me that must be something higher, something that is simply... more than what any science or thought pattern can teach. and as for the big bang and the whole evolution bit, can you explain how those happened? and if you can, then what caused that? ect. it all leads back to God in the end. the human mind will never figure it out scientifically, but logically, the only end is with God. just plain and simple.

...and what created God?
And what created the thing that created God?
And what created the thing that created the thing that created God?
Shall we go infinitely?
It's very much possible that God created the Universe:It's also very much possible that this world is my or your dream.
It's also very much possible that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe.
Really, is there any point in discussing this?
Both religion and science is same in the point that it has a unverifiable, unfalsifiable premise.
Neither is really "better", but science tends to be more self-critical than religion.
Logic is a way of thought to reach a conclusion from a premise:
If religion has a premise and can reach a conclusion from it, religion can be logical as science(not that science is always logical) as long as they have a sound premise and conclusion.

[Earl of Rochester]

t all leads back to God in the end.

Well the same argument could be used against God, how did he come to be? He just is? Well perhaps the universe just is.

Furthermore it all going back to God means that you should belief in the bible(or some other religion)? If you have to accept there is a God( I do) why think that God only revealed himself to Isreal then sent some part of himself to Earth, then had that part killed, then had a mass of people speak gibberish and fill them with some other part of him. Im sorry, but no just plain simple thinking could ever lead you to those conclusions. Religions are just so complex it honestly baffles me that they have stood up for so long.