Is religion/belief in a god inherently illogical

[Godular]

Look, I don't know about logic, but some of us need something incomprehendible in our life to keep chugging along. No harm in leaving us alone

Quantum Mechanics is pretty incomprehensible.

[The Cyberiad Council]

I know I am late to the party, and may repeat someone else's arguments so please bear with me.

I want to refrain from the argument that any gods exist ( although personally I believe in God, the God of Judaism and Christianity) and answer the premise that started the thread. "Is religion/belief in a god inherently illogical?" As for religion, yes, it is completely illogical (I may come back and discuss this later), however, belief in a Cosmic all-maker(s) is completely logical.

First let me define, in my terms, what logic is; thereby you can decide if I have a valid argument or not. Logic is reasoning based off of observed or perceived validities. Such as if you walk into your home and smell cookies, you ascertain someone made cookies. By this definition it is entirely logical to assume that something birthed creation. Look into the night sky; you see innumerable points of light that have stunning beauty impossible to recreate with human hands. Look into the day sky and sheild your eyes from a giant light that moves across the sky, which causes plants to grow, gives warmth, yet retreats to give the coolness if night. The entire world around you a perfectly balanced machine. A closed system(I mean self-sustaining, with input from the sun). It is illogical to assume it all a random occurrence.
Even as science advances, it still is logical to believe in a God. A being so far beyond your comprehension, that it takes the brightest minds to understand what it built everything with, much less how. And as for miracles 'breaking the laws of science ' you could logically infer that if a Being created a universe with governing laws it could easily accomplish what it wanted within the laws that it set forth, even break them entirely if it so willed.

So, yes, there is no reason to believe in a God. Which one you believe in, is up to your soul (consciousness whatever you want to call your 'you').

[Internationalist Bastard]

Look, I don't know about logic, but some of us need something incomprehendible in our life to keep chugging along. No harm in leaving us alone

Quantum Mechanics is pretty incomprehensible.

Yeah, but can you explain that to an idiot? It's a matter that some of us need to be able to look at everything wrong, and think there is a reason for it, and frankly, telling us scientific facts or shoving statistics at us just makes it worst

[Godular]

It is illogical to assume it all a random occurrence.

Not at all. It IS a rather large universe, and if indications hold regarding the number of planets and solar systems we've begun to resolve, there were billions upon billions of opportunities for the universe to stumble upon a goldilocks situation such as ours. Such is not really any cause to say our case is by design rather than happenstance. If anything, noting that it was the result of luck and relatively simple rules leading to a scenario of fractal-level complexity only moves me to think that assigning a 'creator' to it only cheapens things.

[Stormwrath]

While believing in an omnipotent higher being may seem completely illogical, please note that thanks to religion, we have morals and compassion (all due to a fear in God punishing us). Sure, we now don't need religion to be moral now, but without religion, life wouldn't have been so compassionate.

Granted, it came at the cost of rights of other races and the LGBT due to corruption and racism, which is not avoidable.

Please tell my why you think that we have morals and compassion due to religion. I think that such things would exist regardless of religion, and may predate religion. We see compassion and morals in the wild (look at dog packs or bonobos) and there is likely no belief of god there. So please provide evidence that life would be less compassionate without religion.

Personally I think that if there was no religion, humans wouldn't have any reason to be moral. After all, the fear of a god that would get pissed if you do something bad has deterred many more than the punishments for breaking the laws of the land.

[The Foxes Swamp]

belief in something that i can't presently explain to me letalone anyone else doesnt seem illogical to me.

[Vault-Tec Headquarters]

/Only here for the most top of keks



HERESY!
BLASPHEMY!
DEUS VULT THE CUCKS!
THE LORD GOD WITH SMOTE YOU IN HELL, INGRATES!


No, but seriously, I'm religious, and I don't view it as illogical, primarily because I feel the Big Bang Theory does not disprove a god.

[Godular]

Quantum Mechanics is pretty incomprehensible.

Yeah, but can you explain that to an idiot?

Honestly, Quantum Mechanics just boils down to 'Electrons are assholes'.

It's a matter that some of us need to be able to look at everything wrong, and think there is a reason for it, and frankly, telling us scientific facts or shoving statistics at us just makes it worst

If one chooses to gird their eyes in presumptions of intent in unrelated phenomena as a defense mechanism, so be it. So long as others are not harmed I'll not gainsay it.

[Vault-Tec Headquarters]

While believing in an omnipotent higher being may seem completely illogical, please note that thanks to religion, we have morals and compassion (all due to a fear in God punishing us). Sure, we now don't need religion to be moral now, but without religion, life wouldn't have been so compassionate.

Why are morals good/worth having? (Here comes the circular logic)

They aren't. They just make life better for most people, because if everybody was a spoiled, dripping cock with no heart and a pole up their tight assholes, then the world wouldn't be a very nice place.

[Stormwrath]

No, but seriously, I'm religious, and I don't view it as illogical, primarily because I feel the Big Bang Theory does not disprove a god.

"Let there be light."

And the universe went boom in a huge flash of light, creating much of the matter in the universe within seconds.

"Eh, close enough. IT'S GOOD."

[Vault-Tec Headquarters]

No, but seriously, I'm religious, and I don't view it as illogical, primarily because I feel the Big Bang Theory does not disprove a god.

"Let there be light."

And the universe went boom in a huge flash of light, creating much of the matter in the universe within seconds.

"Eh, close enough. IT'S GOOD."

"Ope, wait, gotta create some fuckers to fill this toilethole."

And then a human rose from nothing and shat upon a tree!

"Wonderful. Just wonderful."

[Godular]

Please tell my why you think that we have morals and compassion due to religion. I think that such things would exist regardless of religion, and may predate religion. We see compassion and morals in the wild (look at dog packs or bonobos) and there is likely no belief of god there. So please provide evidence that life would be less compassionate without religion.

Personally I think that if there was no religion, humans wouldn't have any reason to be moral. After all, the fear of a god that would get pissed if you do something bad has deterred many more than the punishments for breaking the laws of the land.

I disagree. Just because so many people are raised under such presumptions does not mean that one can attribute being 'moral' to their belief, and that a lack of belief would instantly cause them to be sociopathic douchebags.

[Vault-Tec Headquarters]

Personally I think that if there was no religion, humans wouldn't have any reason to be moral. After all, the fear of a god that would get pissed if you do something bad has deterred many more than the punishments for breaking the laws of the land.

I disagree. Just because so many people are raised under such presumptions does not mean that one can attribute being 'moral' to their belief, and that a lack of belief would instantly cause them to be sociopathic douchebags.

Humanism = Morals.


Also, it's proven scientifically that all species are naturally altruistic to ensure the continuity of their species.


Morals are inherent.

[Godular]

No, but seriously, I'm religious, and I don't view it as illogical, primarily because I feel the Big Bang Theory does not disprove a god.

That it can't be disproven does not mean it is proven.

[Godular]

I disagree. Just because so many people are raised under such presumptions does not mean that one can attribute being 'moral' to their belief, and that a lack of belief would instantly cause them to be sociopathic douchebags.

Humanism = Morals.

That doesn't really counter my argument.

Also, it's proven scientifically that all species are naturally altruistic to ensure the continuity of their species.

Which only goes to show that some silly book ain't the source of such behavior.

Morals are inherent.

Being 'naturally altruistic' does not in any way equate to being 'moral'.

[Vault-Tec Headquarters]

No, but seriously, I'm religious, and I don't view it as illogical, primarily because I feel the Big Bang Theory does not disprove a god.

That it can't be disproven does not mean it is proven.

That is sort of exactly what that means?


If you cannot disprove something, that means it must be inherently how it works.

[Godular]

That it can't be disproven does not mean it is proven.

That is sort of exactly what that means?


If you cannot disprove something, that means it must be inherently how it works.

Incorrect. Nothing can be 'disproven'. The burden of proof is on supporting the positive statement.

[The Cyberiad Council]

It is illogical to assume it all a random occurrence.

Not at all. It IS a rather large universe, and if indications hold regarding the number of planets and solar systems we've begun to resolve, there were billions upon billions of opportunities for the universe to stumble upon a goldilocks situation such as ours. Such is not really any cause to say our case is by design rather than happenstance. If anything, noting that it was the result of luck and relatively simple rules leading to a scenario of fractal-level complexity only moves me to think that assigning a 'creator' to it only cheapens things.

The chance of our existence is far slimmer than you make it out to be, but I digress. My statement is that it is illogical to assume it all randomness. By the most simple logic if there is creation, there is a Creator. I am not arguing with you that there is, I am merely arguing that the logic is justified(not necessarily right) compared to randomness.

[Vault-Tec Headquarters]

Humanism = Morals.

That doesn't really counter my argument.

Also, it's proven scientifically that all species are naturally altruistic to ensure the continuity of their species.

Which only goes to show that some silly book ain't the source of such behavior.

Morals are inherent.

Being 'naturally altruistic' does not in any way equate to being 'moral'.

No, it wasn't meant to be.

Indeed, but being religious is fun, and allows humans to fulfill our need to be social.

Altruism is, as defined by Merriam-Webster, "the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others."


Moral is defined as "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character."


That is technically a form of morality. Your argument is bait.

[The Cyberiad Council]

That is sort of exactly what that means?


If you cannot disprove something, that means it must be inherently how it works.

Incorrect. Nothing can be 'disproven'. The burden of proof is on supporting the positive statement.

You can disprove things, but proving is astronomically easier.

[Alpha and Omega AquilaJordyn 012]

So since it's been a while since we have had this discussion and since the issue was raised in another thread I thought I would start this topic here. Like the OP stated is religion/belief in a god inherently illogical.

One of the first thing we would have to do is define religion. This is actually harder then one thinks, because there are things like atheistic religions, which while not believing in a god, does believe in a type of force that causes things like reincarnation. So what is it that unifies all religions.

Second we need to define a god. Again this is difficult considering the variety of gods that humans have created over the millenia. Not all gods are all powerful, some are part of pantheons, some are very like humans (think greek gods) while others are entirely inhuman, some are eternal and cannot die, while others have died (hell some are both of those). So again is there a common thing that links all gods. I would say a god is an anthropomorphic being who has opinions and thoughts of it's own and who is capable of breaking the laws of science as they are currently understood. The force described above would be able to break the laws of science as they are currently understood, and yet is not a being, and has no thoughts or opinion of its own.

Now science does change, so by laws of science as currently understood, I mean the most up to date laws and theories at anytime now or in the future.

I would say a religion is a belief in a being or force (think reincarnation) that is capable of breaking the laws of science as we currently understand them, and the traditions, and practices that come about as a result of that belief.

The ontological argument fails because how do we determine what is meant by great? Further, most of each religion admit that they cannot understand their god/force which means that such a god cannot actually be conceived. Finally, there is no reason to believe that the greatest being actually exists.

The theological argument for god is actually one of the worst I have heard. A god or force should be able to make a world work in which we survive despite it "not being possible" for us to actually survive. This would actually provide evidence that such a force exists. Instead, we survive in a world where it is possible for us to survive. We see exactly what we would expect to see should things come about naturally.

Given the definition of religion I gave, and the problems with many of the claims that attempt to show that god/religion is logical, as well as the fact that there is no evidence for a God/force, I would say that religion/belief in a god is indeed inherently illogical.

No, I disagree it's Illogical. if we define Religion as simply a belief that is usually encouraged or even created by the state; then yes it is Illogical. But belief in God? Hardly. We do need to ask ourselves: Can we rule out any Gods? Yes, any God who is not all-powerful, and not beyond comprehension is not a God. A God must be Both, otherwise, they cannot answer why we exist, why anything exists. If they are explainable, they don't enlighten us, they keep us where we are, they solve no problem.
As for breaking the Laws of science, that is an incoherent definition of a "God" friend, Physics are defined by God, God properly understood, is beyond the Universe, and sets the rules of the Universe, coming from the Christian tradition, the Universe is defined by God's nature. God won't make a rock heavier than he can lift because as Physics tell's us, Physics being a reflection of his will, God does not will to have a rock heavier than he can lift, it goes against his nature and his will, he won't do it. God does will say, to keep Gravity as it is, God does will keeping us alive, he doesn't will to make a rock heavier than he can lift, that seem's illogical to us because it goes against reality, which is again, just a reflection of what we see and know about God. As for other religions, arguments coming from those like Saint Thomas Aquinas defend belief in a deity basically, I'm defending a God that can plausibly exist, I don't think it's possible to defend belief in a deity less than Perfect, Incomprehensible, and All-Powerful. Many Theists over the centuries have had different Gods Neutraligion, and some are crazy, I'll agree, but some aren't Illogical, they are beyond Logic. Mystery doesn't suggest error, it suggests advanced knowledge beyond our means of understanding...or lying, possibly lying. There is a long Christian tradition, at least found in the Catholic church of saying thus: If Science finds X to be true, and it seem's to be in confliction with Y scripture passages, one of two things ought to be true: Either A: The science was conducted poorly, or B. We must change our interpretation. As Saint Augustine of Hippo, Church father and beloved early Christian Bishop of Hippo explains:"It is disgraceful and a dangerous thing for an unbeliever to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of scripture, talking nonsense on these topics. Many non-Christians are well-versed in Natural knowledge, so they can detect vast ignorance in such a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The danger is obvious-- the failure to conform interpretation to demonstrated ["Natural," or scientific] knowledge opens the interpreter, and by extension, Christianity as a whole, to ridicule for being unlearned".
You seem to have a problem with God's supposed Incoherency. Incoherency does not mean something is irrational, it mean's it's beyond comprehension, now normally that might suggest irrationality, but not in the relationship between God and man. Let's say you tried to teach a Tad-pole English, and inevitably failed. Why? Was the Tadpole stupid, no for a tadpole they might have been extremely intelligent. Its because the tad-pole is incapable of understanding it, it holds no mental facility to understand language. As humans, we are far dumber than God, and thus understanding him would be impossible by virtue of his absolute power and knowing of all things. As a Christian, I believe God will's our Good, and won't hide any truth we need to know, like that we are descended from Pikachu. We know all we need to know, and much more will one day be revealed. You could take the more pessimist route, that God hides things we need, like some sort of horrible, grand-scale trickster, but I don't.

You said:
"The theological argument for god is actually one of the worst I have heard. A god or force should be able to make a world work in which we survive despite it "not being possible" for us to actually survive. This would actually provide evidence that such a force exists. Instead, we survive in a world where it is possible for us to survive. We see exactly what we would expect to see should things come about naturally".
Friend, who gave you this argument? That is horrendous, that's next level illogical if that's how this person worded it. What I will say is this: The True God, Goddess, perhaps Pantheon,( but I've yet to see a Pantheon that seems's to fit the bill), doesn't do the impossible, again what is impossible goes against the Almighty's will, they do what is beyond our understanding. That's not a limit on their power, saying it is would be a limit on their power would be like saying it's a limit on Apple Juice that it can't be Orange Juice. Also, because God is the "Great Designer" beyond the universe, he does by definition make life possible where none otherwise be, it's by his will that Earth exists exactly as it does, in the state it does, change anything about our planet in Chemical-Makeup, Position, or Size and we couldn't exist.

Lastly- Plenty of Theists have I'm sure presented you with horrendous arguments, shame on them. But God, the True God, is True because he must exist, and is rational, they aren't disproved by poor idea's of what makes a God "God". Alot of what you suggest Theists believe doesn't make sense to believe, and hardly answers the Question: Who is God? God is, at least as understood by my own limited mind: The Transcendent creator of all things, beyond the universe, fully Rational and Logical, but beyond our own limited faculties to understand; who is not just all-loving but Love itself, able to conquer death and keep us alive purely by that Love, which is of course, in harmony with his will, love being an act of the will. If you can agree with that understanding of God, I think you have found yourself what the true god look's like, now you just need to find him. Belief in the God you described is irrational, but belief in God as they actually are isn't; its beyond reason. Belief in what we are unable to explain, but know must be true? That's faith. I believe in God because his non-existence break's reality, not his existence.

Feel free to telegram me if you have any question or problem. You seem nice.

[Vault-Tec Headquarters]

Incorrect. Nothing can be 'disproven'. The burden of proof is on supporting the positive statement.

You can disprove things, but proving is astronomically easier.

Alright, my proof.


"Because you in no way can possibly disprove this, it must be held to be true."


PERFECT.

[36 Camera Perspective]

"Inherently illogical" is a meaningless statement as far as actual logic is concerned.

[Republican Parseh]

Yes, as there is no scientific evidence that there is a god.

As there is also no evidence against the existence of God, I'd say that it's more a matter of personal opinion rather than logic when one is deciding whether a god exists.

[Godular]

Not at all. It IS a rather large universe, and if indications hold regarding the number of planets and solar systems we've begun to resolve, there were billions upon billions of opportunities for the universe to stumble upon a goldilocks situation such as ours. Such is not really any cause to say our case is by design rather than happenstance. If anything, noting that it was the result of luck and relatively simple rules leading to a scenario of fractal-level complexity only moves me to think that assigning a 'creator' to it only cheapens things.

The chance of our existence is far slimmer than you make it out to be, but I digress.

I assure you that such a consideration is irrelevant.

My statement is that it is illogical to assume it all randomness.

Incorrect. It is illogical to assume that just because in one situation where one million dice all came up sixes over the course of nigh-infinite tossings, that it must have been the result of somebody fixing the dice.

By the most simple logic if there is creation, there is a Creator. I am not arguing with you that there is, I am merely arguing that the logic is justified(not necessarily right) compared to randomness.

And again, not so. One cannot simply presume that something 'guided' the universe to our existence without proof to support the statement.