Is religion/belief in a god inherently illogical

[36 Camera Perspective]

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.

Only if you follow the path set out by the positivist physicists (e.g. Heisenberg, Bohr) instead of the conceptually cleaner, less popular path of deterministic QM (e.g. DeBrogile-Bohm theory).

[Stormwrath]

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.

I didn't say they'd be necessarily sociopathic douchebags. Yes, there are moral atheists, but there would be no reason for them to do moral things besides not landing in jail or not pissing someone off. Without a set of beliefs people wouldn't think of morals as "the right thing to do" and more of avoiding penalties and sanctions imposed by society.

[Godular]

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

You can disprove things, but proving is astronomically easier.

Okay, I misspoke. That I'll admit to.

Nothing can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But if there is no evidence to support something, then there is no cause to hold such a thing to be true. Saying that something cannot be disproven is not evidence in favor of the statement being true.

[Vault-Tec Headquarters]

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.

Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is the most likely.


Boom, God exists. 10/10.

/Thread

[Godular]

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.

You can't disprove the existence of invisible unicorn ninjas, therefore they absolutely exist.

[Godular]

I assure you that such a consideration is irrelevant.



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.



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

Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is the most likely.


Boom, God exists. 10/10.

/Thread

Shit happens.

Same result, no added 'god'.

[Gjulich]

Not inherently illogical, but all of the religions we have now are illogical.

[36 Camera Perspective]

No, really, The question in the OP doesn't make any sense.

[Shimazu Teikoku]

Define logic, OP

[36 Camera Perspective]

Define logic, OP

Logic is any formal system that symbolizes natural language statements in order to test the validity of argument forms. I have no idea what the hell "inherently illogical" is supposed to mean, because properly, religion can't be illogical, only arguments with religious implications can be.

[Shimazu Teikoku]

Logic is any formal system that symbolizes natural language statements in order to test the validity of argument forms. I have no idea what the hell "inherently illogical" is supposed to mean, because properly, religion can't be illogical, only arguments with religious implications can be.

That's why I want to know what meaning that OP is attaching to "logic". I really can't even take a position without full understanding of this post.

[Godular]

Define logic, OP

Logic is any formal system that symbolizes natural language statements in order to test the validity of argument forms. I have no idea what the hell "inherently illogical" is supposed to mean, because properly, religion can't be illogical, only arguments with religious implications can be.

Would it be more apropos to change 'religion' to 'faith'?

[The Cyberiad Council]

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.

The scientific explanation can in no way be related to one million die come up sixes. It would be more like a Google Google Google of dice formed an exact copy of the observable universe, and all in a consecutive"1,2,3,4,5,6..." pattern facing up without any initial cause and formed self-replicating, sentient structures.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Logic is any formal system that symbolizes natural language statements in order to test the validity of argument forms. I have no idea what the hell "inherently illogical" is supposed to mean, because properly, religion can't be illogical, only arguments with religious implications can be.

Would it be more apropos to change 'religion' to 'faith'?

If you precisely define faith as "belief without reason", then it could be called inherently illogical, since, by definition, one who believes without reason is not offering any logic to speak of.

[Godular]

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.

The scientific explanation can in no way be related to one million die come up sixes. It would be more like a Google Google Google of dice formed an exact copy of the observable universe, and all in a consecutive"1,2,3,4,5,6..." pattern facing up without any initial cause and formed self-realization, sentient structures.

That does not counter my position.

[Quokkastan]

In the absence of anything to substantiate religious claims, yes.

If you live in the Stargate universe, you are entirely justified in believing in Ra.

[Rechtsverein]

Perception defines reality. As one expands their understanding, they can expand their reality. While reality exists whether we experience it or not, we cannot make claims about things outside of our experience. Multiple universes may exist, but we cannot say for certain until we have identified tangible and verifiable evidence supporting such, nor can we make claims about what traits those other universes might have.

I'm not sure what it means for "perception to define reality", but okay. I assume you're trying to defend transcendental idealism. Which is fine (I'm a transcendental idealist), but then you're going to be stuck with all the conclusions of Kantianism that most people don't want to accept.

I don't, because it is wrong to do so. If something is 'outside of experience' then there is no proof of its existence.

This is not consistent with Kant's own writings. This would imply that we have no reason to think things-in-themselves exist, but Kant thinks that we do. We can make claims about the existence of (and even properties of) objects outside of the realm of possible experience: this is why Kant believes in noumenal reality.

The instant it says 'And we call this god' it becomes a god of the gaps argument.

No, it doesn't. If theologians moved from "there is a First cause" to "that first cause has to be a 2000 year old Jewish zombie", then you would be right, but that is not how any theologian has ever argued the case.

I would recommend taking a look at a modern defender of the cosmological argument (or any argument you oppose, for that matter) before criticizing it. There are quite a few more steps between "there is a first cause" and "there is a God".

I was not speaking of your comment, I was more attesting to the fact that whether Dawkins and co. direct any energy towards critiquing the cosmological argument is irrelevant to the fact that there yet remains a distinct dearth of tangible evidence supporting the existence of any 'divine entity' whatsoever.

The cosmological argument is evidence for the existence of God. Maybe not compelling evidence if you're a transcendental idealist (but have a bit of humility here and recognize that most people - including most professional philosophers, including most professional philosophers who specialize in metaphysics - are not transcendental idealists), but it's a coherent argument.

[Godular]

Would it be more apropos to change 'religion' to 'faith'?

If you precisely define faith as "belief without reason", then it could be called inherently illogical, since, by definition, one who believes without reason is not offering any logic to speak of.

In the context of discussion relating to religion, that would be the definition employed.

A secondary question: would something that is logically fallacious still be considered logical?

[The Cyberiad Council]

The scientific explanation can in no way be related to one million die come up sixes. It would be more like a Google Google Google of dice formed an exact copy of the observable universe, and all in a consecutive"1,2,3,4,5,6..." pattern facing up without any initial cause and formed self-realization, sentient structures.

That does not counter my position.

Seeing as how we cannot find common ground, and because it is nearly 12 am EST I shall take up this argument in the morning

[Vault-Tec Headquarters]

Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is the most likely.


Boom, God exists. 10/10.

/Thread

Shit happens.

Same result, no added 'god'.

Shit happens, including God.


Occam's razor. Thread soloed.


Listen, we can't have debates about religion, because something as simple as Occam's razor fucks the entire debate.

[Godular]

Perception defines reality. As one expands their understanding, they can expand their reality. While reality exists whether we experience it or not, we cannot make claims about things outside of our experience. Multiple universes may exist, but we cannot say for certain until we have identified tangible and verifiable evidence supporting such, nor can we make claims about what traits those other universes might have.

I'm not sure what it means for "perception to define reality", but okay. I assume you're trying to defend transcendental idealism. Which is fine (I'm a transcendental idealist), but then you're going to be stuck with all the conclusions of Kantianism that most people don't want to accept.

Whether they accept it or not is irrelevant.

I don't, because it is wrong to do so. If something is 'outside of experience' then there is no proof of its existence.

This is not consistent with Kant's own writings. This would imply that we have no reason to think things-in-themselves exist, but Kant thinks that we do. We can make claims about the existence of (and even properties of) objects outside of the realm of possible experience: this is why Kant believes in noumenal reality.

I might say I don't agree with everything that Kant says. One cannot say that something exists without evidence to support that claim.

The instant it says 'And we call this god' it becomes a god of the gaps argument.

No, it doesn't. If theologians moved from "there is a First cause" to "that first cause has to be a 2000 year old Jewish zombie", then you would be right, but that is not how any theologian has ever argued the case.

I would recommend taking a look at a modern defender of the cosmological argument (or any argument you oppose, for that matter) before criticizing it. There are quite a few more steps between "there is a first cause" and "there is a God".

Nah. One of the things that is presupposed in the argument is that there had to be a first cause in the first place. This is not necessarily true, and one should not base their argument on it.

I was not speaking of your comment, I was more attesting to the fact that whether Dawkins and co. direct any energy towards critiquing the cosmological argument is irrelevant to the fact that there yet remains a distinct dearth of tangible evidence supporting the existence of any 'divine entity' whatsoever.

The cosmological argument is evidence for the existence of God. Maybe not compelling evidence if you're a transcendental idealist (but have a bit of humility here and recognize that most people - including most professional philosophers, including most professional philosophers who specialize in metaphysics - are not transcendental idealists), but it's a coherent argument.

I disagree. I also refuse to take the word of others on it. Hence: Word Salad is not evidence.

[Quokkastan]

Shit happens.

Same result, no added 'god'.

Shit happens, including God.


Occam's razor. Thread soloed.


Listen, we can't have debates about religion, because something as simple as Occam's razor fucks the entire debate.

You're mistaking "Occam's razor" for "Ad hoccam's Cudgel"

Saying "God did it" isn't a proper use of Occam's razor.

[Polar Svalbard]

No it is not illogical, you can't prove that a god exists or does not exist no matter what you do, thus it is neither logical nor illogical to believe in one as it is impossible to prove until you are dead and no longer able to prove it.

-From Polar with Love.

[Godular]

Shit happens.

Same result, no added 'god'.

Shit happens, including God.

At which point you have to define what this god thing is and why it deserves to be in the explanation at all.

Occam's razor. Thread soloed.

Further evincing your detachment from reality.

Listen, we can't have debates about religion, because something as simple as Occam's razor fucks the entire debate.

No, your misunderstanding of what occam's razor entails leads you to make erroneous statements.

[Quokkastan]

No it is not illogical, you can't prove that a god exists or does not exist no matter what you do, thus it is neither logical nor illogical to believe in one as it is impossible to prove until you are dead and no longer able to prove it.

-From Polar with Love.

This is more or less the definition of an argument from ignorance.