[quote]pat wrote:
Logical conclusions based on deduction must always be true. [/quote]
Still making the same mistakes I see or, engaging in the same intellectual dishonestly. In order for the deduction to be true, the premise need be true.
Let me save your some time Iron…he’s going to lean on his cosmological argument and present it to you as gospel (pun intended). He knows the pros and cons to the argument, but will not conceded it’s weaknesses.
You are wasting your time, and like all things in PWI concerning religion and god, this has been done before, ad nauseum.
they will also dissect your post to respond to minutia…but in doing so, make it virtually impossible to rebut those points in a format that is friendly and conducive to continued dialogue. He has already started it above. this, is a dead end.
[quote]pat wrote:
Logical conclusions based on deduction must always be true. [/quote]
Still making the same mistakes I see or, engaging in the same intellectual dishonestly. In order for the deduction to be true, the premise need be true.
[/quote]
I certainly don’t advocate putting forth false premises to make a valid conclusion. So what mistake?
It doesn’t have one. You’ve certainly never been able to find it. To be specific, I lean on the argument from contingency. Show me it’s weakness(es), I’ll show you where your wrong.
[quote]
You are wasting your time, and like all things in PWI concerning religion and god, this has been done before, ad nauseum. [/quote]
One should not make bold statements such as ‘religion is illogical’ if one is incapable of backing it up.
Yep it’s been done before, so?
Pat- first of all deduction is NOT stronger than observation. Quantum physics would not exist if we had continued to deduce based on Newtonian physics rather than observed phenomenon that didn’t fit the application. Our entire scientific advancement has pretty much been the result of different inventions that allowed us to see further in one way or another. Secondly, what is the point of arguing language? Will we learn anything from each other if we don’t agree on a common one?
Are you honestly arguing that we can know about the existance of God with the same assurity that we can know the interaction of electrical charges?
Also, there is a huge difference between bashing religion and asking people to think logically about it. For instance, say I went into a forum about physics or evolution or biology in general and presented the room with a set of problems like the above and asked the audience to think logically about them. Those who were interested would be excited about the challenge. I do this all the time at my work. Right now I work on a team that’s currently re-writing part of the regular basic biology texts because we discovered some phenomenon that don’t make sense and some other ones that make more sense. Proposing that something is illogical isn’t a bash, it’s the start of progress.
Finally, there’s a difference between saying that religion is illogical, served a purpose at the time, and should be treated as an interesting tool in history, and saying that I know God doesn’t exist.
Also Pat, you haven’t still haven’t answered any of the original questions regarding which option is more logical. I presented numerous logic gaps found in one religion and presented a logical explanation.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Also Pat, you haven’t still haven’t answered any of the original questions regarding which option is more logical. I presented numerous logic gaps found in one religion and presented a logical explanation. [/quote]
Its pointless to argue with a dogmatic theist. Whether you are an atheist in a narrow or broad sense he is trying to portray that is claiming something came from nothing which is most certainly not the case. That is just a theist having an ill considered understanding of a non theists position. Plus even if we grant the cosmological argument to be true it proves nothing like the existence of a Christian god.
Nuanced arguments are shouted down even arguments Christian scholars agree are somewhat troubling. For example god being eternal and what it means for scripture and the narrative of the bible and a redeeming god.
Although I don’t fully agree with Wittgenstein it is why I brought up his lectures and his idea that belief and non belief are not necessarily contrary positions. The idea of religious beliefs being a mode of life and the denial of such beliefs being true is not a disputation of those facts, but simply a non agreement to take part in such a mode seems closer to the heart of things.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Also Pat, you haven’t still haven’t answered any of the original questions regarding which option is more logical. I presented numerous logic gaps found in one religion and presented a logical explanation. [/quote]
Got to get back to studying physical chemistry, but as a theist I can say that all of your options you have presented are false dichotomies, if you don’t want the theist to dismiss all of the options what you are going to have to do is present proposition(s) and their negation so that one is more plausible compared to the other to base your argument on
A bit more on your first premise, what you are getting at is called the problem of evil which Epicurus formulated in 300 BC. There have been many theodicies and defenses for the problem of evil ever since Augustine and the latest the freewill defense of the problem of evil by Alvin Plantinga. This argument isn’t used by atheist philosophers anymore. If you want to look more into it check out the videos in the links below from something I wrote in the “Why did God create Satan” thread.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I will give an answer that will somewhat have the thread back on track even though it will be mostly derailed.
I see the question of as to why God created Satan strongly tied in into the problem of evil so much in fact that it’s more a question as to why God created a world in which he knew evil would arise in. Now I cannot give a theodicy as to why God created a world that contained evil in it but I can give a defense as to why he did. First the question as to why God created Satan. God created Satan and the angles with free will knowing that Satan would be the first one to fall bring with him a third of the angles which he uses in his providence to execute his plan in the grand scheme of things.
As to why God would create a world which contains evil in it, it may be possible that in any world he creates where beings are given free will given a certain amount of beings that come to exist some of them chose to do the morally wrong. Now God doesn’t cause or determine them to do whats only morally good for if he does, than the beings are not free morally. Also the greatest thing possible that can be done for fallen beings, the atonement and incarnation can only be done in a world with great evil and suffering. Had God made mince meat out of Satan and his cronies from the onset said incarnation and atonement wouldn’t have happened for the human race. It may be also due to the nature of the fall of Satan and a third of the angles that atonement isn’t available for them. Because of the atonement humans who are saved get to stand in much closer relationship with him than if humanity never fell. His incarnation is proof that he isn’t distance from our pain and suffering but that he joins us in it and paid the ultimate penalty so that we may be redeemed. Thus there is no implicit contradiction in the syllogism.
A omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God exists.
Evil exists.
Since God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil to exist even though we might not know what they are. This is made evident in the book of Job where Job’s thinking God has no reasons for allowing him to be afflicted but upon Job seeing who God really is, even though God doesn’t tell Job what his reasons are. That God is not arbitrary in his actions and Job repents and praises God.
Here some youtube videos that discuss the problem of evil and suffering.
Joab- Thanks for getting the thread back on topic.
Two things:
This thread is not about whether or not God exists. It’s about whether it’s more logical to believe what’s written by a religion or by sociologiests about the development of religion. Subscribing to a religion is not the same thing as being a theist or athiest. You can let go of an attachment to a religion that doesn’t make logical sense while still retaining belief in a creator.
I am not arguing about WHY a religion says God made Satan. I am just asking whether it’s more logical to go with the religious explanation or the anthropologist/sociologist’s.
[quote]pat wrote:
Logical conclusions based on deduction must always be true. [/quote]
Still making the same mistakes I see or, engaging in the same intellectual dishonestly. In order for the deduction to be true, the premise need be true.
Let me save your some time Iron…he’s going to lean on his cosmological argument and present it to you as gospel (pun intended). He knows the pros and cons to the argument, but will not conceded it’s weaknesses.
You are wasting your time, and like all things in PWI concerning religion and god, this has been done before, ad nauseum. [/quote]
we don’t need a religion to justify our rape, pillage and taking over of our neighbor’s land.
[quote]
-that an all knowing, all powerful, perfect being needs imperfect beings to serve him and sing his praises for eternity, or that a culture back in the day wasn’t sure what would happen when they died, and being welcomed into the presence of a perfect being and surrounded by all their buddies for eternity sounded good? [/quote]
Yet many pagans (and the vast majority of mankind during the vast majority of its history) didn’t thought that “being welcomed into the presence ofa perfect being and surrounded by all their buddies for eternity” sounded that good.
Obviously interpretation changes with the needs/beliefs of the culture you live in. But it just proves that deviant interpretations may arise. It doesn’t prove that all interpretations are equally arbitrary. And it doesn’t prove that there is no “right interpretation” at all.
[quote]
that religious stories are literally real or that they are a venue to pass down cultural knowledge of food preparation, work habits, sexual activity, and social activities which have helped the culture survive? [/quote]
again, you don’t need a religion to “pass down cultural knowledge of food preparation, work habits, sexual activity, and social activities”.
[quote]
that any imperfection can even indirectly result from a perfect being, or that the religion’s human creators had terrible logic skills? [/quote]
show me an imperfection and i will show you someone with quite impressive logic skills.
the irony of this post is that it comes not from a christian, but from another atheist.
Another atheist who happen to think that denial of death, ideological false conscience, social conformism and wishful thinking doesn’t explain religiosity.
the (anthropological) question is interresting. Your easy answers are not.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
stop it right now. this thread has no place in PWI. there is no place for logic in a discussion about religion…just you wait and see. [/quote]
This may have been intended as sarcasm but it’s absolutely correct. Most religions ask followers to deny logic in many scenarios and do so unabashedly.
If this thread is an attempt to discredit religion based on logic, it is a flawed thread. Religion is not logical and has never tried to be.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Joab- Thanks for getting the thread back on topic.
Two things:
This thread is not about whether or not God exists. It’s about whether it’s more logical to believe what’s written by a religion or by sociologiests about the development of religion. Subscribing to a religion is not the same thing as being a theist or athiest. You can let go of an attachment to a religion that doesn’t make logical sense while still retaining belief in a creator.
I am not arguing about WHY a religion says God made Satan. I am just asking whether it’s more logical to go with the religious explanation or the anthropologist/sociologist’s.[/quote]
Well the options you have presented are also a false dichotomy for religion especially if you are referring to Christianity.
I have presented something logical about what religion(in this case Christianity) says about your first premise. Methodological Naturalism which is used by anthropologist/sociologist’s doesn’t have bearing on whether behaviors such as rape and pillaging are good or evil and rules free will out of the picture since by its nature is deterministic. It only speaks in terms of behavior which doesn’t address much of your first premise.
[quote]groo wrote:
I don’t think its the same topic. Do you think Wittgenstein is correct that belief and non belief are not necessarily contrary positions?[/quote]
Fine, I’ll entertain you. If you want to understand how evil can exist in a world governed by God? Read Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius.
Of course they are contradictory, you cannot believe and not-believe at the same time.
Can you clarify your question. I’m not understanding the question.
Instead of what?
What difference do you see between an eternal god and an everlasting god?
Wolterstrorff the Calvinist? I’ll be honest, there are only a few people I read that date after the reformation (they usually lived before 1600s). So, forgive me if I don’t know who these people are.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
stop it right now. this thread has no place in PWI. there is no place for logic in a discussion about religion…just you wait and see. [/quote]
This may have been intended as sarcasm but it’s absolutely correct. Most religions ask followers to deny logic in many scenarios and do so unabashedly.
If this thread is an attempt to discredit religion based on logic, it is a flawed thread. Religion is not logical and has never tried to be.[/quote]
