God vs Logic

sponger

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Stalin and Pol pot were humanistic. Secular? yes. But, they were secular for the reason that religion has a tendency to inspire hope out of thin air, which can be a dangerous prospect for any dictatorship.

Humanism cannot be practiced without secularism, but secularism does not always involve humanism.

know1

NCfan wrote:

Okay, this is what doesn't make sense to me....

Why would God put us in a position to choose our destiny for all of eternity based on something we cannot even comprehend? We are not talking about a stroll in the park here, we're talking eternal damnation in a fiery pit! That is some pretty heavy shit....

I just don't get it. Why would God take it personal and damn somebody to hell becuase they didn't believe in him..... becuase there is pretty much nothing to prove his existense? It's like we're all just supposed to have "faith". Doesn't make sense.

Furthermore, it upsets me that God has chosen who he will burden with this choice. Hundreds of millions of people walked the earth before Jesus came. What happened to those people? Why were they not faced with this delima, yet all of us are? Where their lives not as valuable?

See...it has to be all or nothing with some of you. I never said that I feel God doesn't let us understand anything. What I'm saying is that it's conceivable to me that there are some items of God's "logic" that might be beyond our ability to understand or comprehend. That's only natural if there is a God. If God were just as smart or powerful as humans, there would be no need for God.

know1

Ahnimus wrote:

I don't consider logic a personal opinion. It's something that we all have, some choose to ignore it. In computer networking we have what we call a logical network and a physical network. The physical network is the way in which the various devices are physically connected and that can be known simply by looking at the network. A logical network is the way the devices behave with each other through the configuration. It may appear one way physically but behave a completely different way logically. No amount of personal opinon can change either the physical or logical processes of the network.

Reality works the same way. Physically we are all products of our ancestors which includes our parents, grandparents etc.. that can be observed by our names and relatives which we openly associate ourselves with. Logically speaking [evolution] we are all decendants of the amoeba or a similar single-celled organism and that can be determined by looking at our configurations (DNA).

God, exists in neither physical or logical realities. Until someone can provide reasoning to support the logical claim of god's existance, and logic that stands up to scrutiny as well as DNA. Physical evidence should be produced to prove god's existance in the physical reality, as irrefutable as our own existances.

This serves my point exactly. Here is someone that is blind to the fact that human's really don't know squat, and is calling for God to prove himself in means that we simple beings cannot refute.

catefrances

know1 wrote:

This serves my point exactly. Here is someone that is blind to the fact that human's really don't know squat, and is calling for God to prove himself in means that we simple beings cannot refute.

why is it that we humans are always simple beings and God's machinations are outside our realm of understanding and comprehension.

catefrances

know1 wrote:

This serves my point exactly. Here is someone that is blind to the fact that human's really don't know squat, and is calling for God to prove himself in means that we simple beings cannot refute.

why is it that we humans are always simple beings and God's machinations are outside our realm of understanding and comprehension.

mxaaron

Ahnimus wrote:

Scripture means very little to me. I consider it an early attempt at recorded history. Similar to other ancient texts. At the time of the Assyrians and Sumerians in ancient Mesopotamia they believed in aliens and documented it on stones. Perhaps that is proof of alien life. The watch analogy is simple, we only create something because it serves us a purpose. Why would a perfect being be any different?.

You implied in your earlier post that since God created us, it must be a sign of imperfection, the same way we humans need watches. I was pointing out that God does not need us the same way a human needs a watch.

As far as scripture goes, I assumed we were talking in the context of the Judeo-Christian God, in which case I was asking for an example from either the old or new testaments which would support your claim that God needs us the same way I need a watch.

Ahnimus wrote:

Everything is imperfect. The entire universe is ultimately going to change and destroy us. Poverty, abuse, natural disasters, crime. Those things aren't perfect. You do not have control over reality because you exist within it. Your level of control is 90% your ability to use your hands. .

Yes, I would agree everything is imperfect, both man and earth (Is. 24:5-6). This is a result of the fall.

Ahnimus wrote:

That century old arguement, thinking something could possibly exist doesn't mean it does. A giant chicken could be floating through space five million kilometers away, heading for earth to eat us. It's not going to happen no matter how much I want it to.

You mean the ontological argument? Given your response here I'm not sure you totally understand just what it says.

Ahnimus wrote:

Please, I missed that part or forgot it maybe. I vaguely remember it being a war against evil. An eternal war? Hey not much different on earth.

Eternal war? The war I think the war you refer to was over before it began (Rev 20:7-10). As for what heaven will be like, Rev. 21 is a good place to start.

Ahnimus wrote:

Can't be perfect..

Now that's what I call reasoning....

Ahnimus wrote:

Politics and religion don't go good together, those same conclusions can be met through logic.

I would tend to agree, but at the same time it is ignorant to say people's belief systems, whether it centers around a God or not, do not influence their actions/ choices in politics.

mxaaron

Ahnimus wrote:

God, exists in neither physical or logical realities. Until someone can provide reasoning to support the logical claim of god's existance, and logic that stands up to scrutiny as well as DNA. Physical evidence should be produced to prove god's existance in the physical reality, as irrefutable as our own existances.

What exactly is a "logical reality"? As far as the reasoning goes, I have given you one argument for the existence of God, the ontological argument.

Since when does something have to be backed up by DNA evidence to be logically possible? Case in point, it is logically possible for my dog sugar to evolve into those poor chipmunks she chases around in my yard. Why is this not a logical possibility? Although it is physically impossible, it is in no way logically impossible.

Now you can say that existence of God is physically impossible, but that would be an entirely different debate. The original post was about God & Logic...

baraka

This debate has always intrigued me. I'm all about science and logic, but I have to confess that I have always had a vague feeling that there is 'something' beyond the surface of reality. I think the the 'ultimate' questions lie beyond the scope of ogic.

What kind of logic or reasoning are we talking about exactly? Deductive? Inductive? Obviously, deductive reasoning (a cat is a cat and everything either is or isn't a cat) is only as good as the premise on which it is founded and it is generally agreed that logio-deductive reasoning is probably the most secure form of reasoning. However, this use of logic has been questioned or challenged by some, ie, quantum logic. The rule that something can't both be and not be something is thrown out the window. I'm thinking quantum physics would not be what it is today if scientists had confined themselves to rigid deductive reasoning. What about inductive reasoning? This type of reasoning starts out on set of given facts or assumptions, a process of generalizations. It is based on previous experience, ie the prediction that the sun will rise since it has risen on queue every day so far in our experience. But one has to concede that conclusions arrived at inductively are never absolutely secure in the logical manner of deductive conclusions, even though common sense is based on induction. I believe human intellectual endeavors have not always proceeded through deductive or inductive reasoning. I think great advances in science and humanity in general rests with free ranging imaginative leaps or inspiration. This is where I come to an impasse where logic is concerned. Is inspiration a consequence of of normal reasoning which takes place deep in the subconscious or do ideas have a sort of independant existence discovered by a receptive mind? (That question is for you Ahnimus). If the former is true, then how did such an ability evolve?

It is a fact that people hold beliefs that pertain to God that might be preceived as irrational. That they are held irrationally does not mean they are wrong. Maybe there is a route to knowledge that transcends human reasoning? Maybe due to the fact we are reasoning beings, we just perceive ourselves in an oasis of apparent rationality? Maybe the world is not rational, but if it is, what is the origin of that rationality?

WindNoSail

Logic can only take you as far as knowledge and knowledge is limited. Science is limited by knowledge as well, how many scientific theories have been proving wrong or absurd over the years?

So, logic is not the only answer to questions. Is philosphy a science? What about literature? But don't these areas teach us as well?

cornnifer

catefrances wrote:

no. but it sure makes me powerful in the knowledge that i can create life. knowing i can sustain,grow and nurture and give birth while shedding blood. yet when man sheds blood all he delivers is death.

Let me preface this by saying that i have three sons of my own. i was present throughout the conception, gestation, and birth of all three. Absolutely amazing. i have an immeasureable amount of respect for my wife (and women in general) for the role they play in propogating the species.
That being said, i must point out that you created nothing on your own, if in fact you created it at all. A man was necessary. Half of the DNA is his. You seem to imply that men are completely unneeded and unimportant in this process. i find that a tad ridiculous. i might also ask did you actually create anything? Or, did you just provide the material?
Again i don't mean to take away from what you have accomplished.

kenny olav

Given that God created everything, then God created Logic, so if Logic wins in a struggle against God, God wins.

69charger

Kenny Olav wrote:

Given that God created everything, then God created Logic, so if Logic wins in a struggle against God, God wins.

God doesn't exist. At least not as an entity. As a concept he most certainly exists.

kenny olav

69charger wrote:

God doesn't exist. At least not as an entity. As a concept he most certainly exists.

I know another concept that exists: being facetious.

Abookamongstthemany

WindNoSail wrote:

Logic can only take you as far as knowledge and knowledge is limited. Science is limited by knowledge as well, how many scientific theories have been proving wrong or absurd over the years?

So, logic is not the only answer to questions. Is philosphy a science? What about literature? But don't these areas teach us as well?

Faith is extremely limited, though. There is no room for advancements and new findings. It is what it is and you have to accept it blindly, without question. I have a problem with living my life in hopes of some all mighty god clearing up all my questions for me in the after life. I want to live now and follow my senses and my own consciousness, free to experience life with out a set of rules that I don't fully understand the need for.

Bu2

Can't we all accept that religion is somewhat faulty, and science is too?

I'm all for accepting that kindness goes a long a way, as does local charity. I'm all for doing the right thing. I'm all for standing up for myself, though, when someone tries to do me wrong. I'm all for trying to save this planet we're on, and the people currently clinging to it.

Can't it be that easy????

Abookamongstthemany

Bu2 wrote:

Can't we all accept that religion is somewhat faulty, and science is too?

I'm all for accepting that kindness goes a long a way, as does local charity. I'm all for doing the right thing. I'm all for standing up for myself, though, when someone tries to do me wrong. I'm all for trying to save this planet we're on, and the people currently clinging to it.

Can't it be that easy????

Both are faulty but science changes it's faults and it's constantly improving whereas religion doen't correct itself, advance or evolve. It is what it is...no questions or new ways of living/believing are accepted. One learns and one stays stuck in the same thought.

baraka

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Faith is extremely limited, though. There is no room for advancements and new findings. It is what it is and you have to accept it blindly, without question. I have a problem with living my life in hopes of some all mighty god clearing up all my questions for me in the after life. I want to live now and follow my senses and my own consciousness, free to experience life with out a set of rules that I don't fully understand the need for.

It seems like you have the same 'hang ups' I do when it pertains to most organized religions. There are tenets that are very hard to swallow, at least for me. I was once told that looking for spirituality or God through science and logic was wrong, that such a journey required faith, a concept I've always had a hard time with. So, how does one suddenly take a leap of faith? And then I came to realize faith is somewhat a part of science, esp physics. The inverse-square law of electrical force has been tested many times in numerous ways and it always holds. Yet we can never be absolutely certain that it applies unfailingly, but on the basis of induction, we can conclude only that it is very probable that the law will hold the next time it is tested, so I have faith that the inverse square law of electrical force will hold once again.

So then maybe my problem wasn't with faith so much, since I chose to put my faith into experiments I can replicate numerous times in a lab or faith that the sun will rise, since it has risen every time in my experience. Putting faith in something so esoteric, like a higher power is hard, esp when you have scriptures that you disagree with or don't understand or perhaps just find innately wrong.

Bu2

including the book amongst the many on the shelf....

I have read the Bible and I've found many problems with it. Many problems. I have read Buddha's writings and I liked them but I found problems with those too. I have read other writings on religion and I've never been able to pigeon-hole myself into any one religion on this earth. To this day, I'm an agnostic.

I have no answers. I just have faith that when it all comes down to it, being kind and understanding is the best way to be. Accepting differences is the best way to go. Watching the scientists learn what they learn will help us all grow, but holding onto the good lessons that seem outdated can't hurt any of us either.

That's what I believe.

EDIT: I also believe that when any given religion tries to push itself onto other peoples of other faiths.....or no faith.......only hell breaks loose. So IMHO it ain't worth the war.

Abookamongstthemany

Bu2 wrote:

including the book amongst the many on the shelf....

I have read the Bible and I've found many problems with it. Many problems. I have read Buddha's writings and I liked them but I found problems with those too. I have read other writings on religion and I've never been able to pigeon-hole myself into any one religion on this earth. To this day, I'm an agnostic.

I have no answers. I just have faith that when it all comes down to it, being kind and understanding is the best way to be. Accepting differences is the best way to go. Watching the scientists learn what they learn will help us all grow, but holding onto the good lessons that seem outdated can't hurt any of us either.

That's what I believe.

EDIT: I also believe that when any given religion tries to push itself onto other peoples of other faiths.....or no faith.......only hell breaks loose. So IMHO it ain't worth the war.

I'm cool with a person believing whatever they want as long their beliefs aren't used to condemn or discriminate against people with differing views....especially when we can't prove any of these beliefs to be true. I'm sharing my reasonings as to why I choose not to believe but I don't want to push anyone into believing as I do, not do I want laws condemning believers based on my disbelief. I'm just putting my questions out here to discuss. I say let everyone live as they see fit as long as it's not at the expense of someone else's life or choosen path.

keeponrockin

I don't get the LOGIC behind The Bible being right because the Bible says the Bible is right... I think you need to enjoy life, and not be worried about what happens after. When I'm dead I'm dead. Thats it. I'll live my life the way I want to. If I go to hell, there are a lot of cool people coming with me.