Is religion/belief in a god inherently illogical

[36 Camera Perspective]

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?

It depends on what you mean by logically fallacious. Specifically, what type of category you're dealing with. I'm also going to assume beforehand that logical means the same thing as "logical validity". So the question is "Can a logically fallacious argument still be valid?".

Logical fallacies fall under formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies entail logical errors that can be proven invalid within a logical system. For example, we know that affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy because, using a formal system (in this case, sentential logic is sufficient), we can demonstrate that the premises of the form can be true and the conclusion false, rendering the form invalid. So formal fallacies are never valid.

Informal fallacies which are also logically fallacious, can be valid. With informal fallacies, the problem with the argument relates to the content in its premises rather than the logical form of the argument. Thus, arguments which commit informal fallacies can be valid but unsound.

[Godular]

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?

It depends.

Logical fallacies fall under formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies entail logical errors that can be proven invalid within a logical system. For example, we know that affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy because, using a formal system (in this case, sentential logic is sufficient), we can demonstrate that the premises of the form can be true and the conclusion false, rendering the form invalid. So formal fallacies are never valid.

Informal fallacies which are also logically fallacious, can be valid. With informal fallacies, the problem with the argument relates to the content in its premises rather than the logical form of the argument. Thus, arguments which commit informal fallacies can be valid but unsound.

Huh. You seem a lot more relatable than a certain philosophy grad student who traipsed around here a while back.

[Vault-Tec Headquarters]

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.

It is actually. Simplest explanation is the most acceptable.

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.

Simplest explanation, God is the creator.

Occam's razor as defined: "Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony."


The less assumptions necessary, the more likely it is true.

Assumptions for god:


God created the universe, therefore we exist.

God made us, therefore we can have this debate.

God is perfect, therefore everything They create must be by design.


Assumptions against God:

Universe created itself.

Universe programmed its own mechanics, down to the most perfect level without sentience or guidance.

The universe just so happened to form a planet capable of life.

That planet just so happened to allow billions of species to spawn.

Along with those billions of species, humans just so happened to come along as well.

Because of the universe, we're having this debate now.


First set of assumptions' evidence:

Clockmaker Theory

Prominence of Theology

Prominence of Creationism

Big Bang Theory coinciding with Genesis.


Second set of assumptions' evidence:

Possible presence of Rainbow Gravity.

Big Bang Theory.




^ Occam's razor suggests it's logical to believe in a god.

[36 Camera Perspective]

It depends.

Logical fallacies fall under formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies entail logical errors that can be proven invalid within a logical system. For example, we know that affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy because, using a formal system (in this case, sentential logic is sufficient), we can demonstrate that the premises of the form can be true and the conclusion false, rendering the form invalid. So formal fallacies are never valid.

Informal fallacies which are also logically fallacious, can be valid. With informal fallacies, the problem with the argument relates to the content in its premises rather than the logical form of the argument. Thus, arguments which commit informal fallacies can be valid but unsound.

Huh. You seem a lot more relatable than a certain philosophy grad student who traipsed around here a while back.

Well, I love learning philosophy and explaining philosophy to other people, so if you meant that a previous user was arrogant with their abilities, you can be assured I won't reach that point.

[Quokkastan]

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

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

It is actually. Simplest explanation is the most acceptable.

That's not Occam's razor. That's a teenage misunderstanding of Occam's razor.

Occam's razor states that the explanation with the fewest unjustified assumptions is preferential.

[Godular]

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

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

It is actually. Simplest explanation is the most acceptable.

The simplest explanation given facts at hand. Not mere assumptions.

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



Further evincing your detachment from reality.



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

Simplest explanation, God is the creator.

Occam's razor as defined: "Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony."


The less assumptions necessary, the more likely it is true.

Assumptions for god:


God created the universe, therefore we exist.

God made us, therefore we can have this debate.

God is perfect, therefore everything They create must be by design.


Assumptions against God:

Universe created itself.

Universe programmed its own mechanics, down to the most perfect level without sentience or guidance.

The universe just so happened to form a planet capable of life.

That planet just so happened to allow billions of species to spawn.

Along with those billions of species, humans just so happened to come along as well.

Because of the universe, we're having this debate now.


First set of assumptions' evidence:

Clockmaker Theory

Prominence of Theology

Prominence of Creationism

Big Bang Theory coinciding with Genesis.


Second set of assumptions' evidence:

Possible presence of Rainbow Gravity.

Big Bang Theory.




^ Occam's razor suggests it's logical to believe in a god.

Incorrect. You're parsing words in an attempt to make one side seem 'simpler' than the other, and you continue to discount extant facts in so doing.

[36 Camera Perspective]

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've spent years on the Kalam. I once accepted it as sound for a six month period, which illustrates my objectivity on the issue. Today, and for most of the time I've spent researching it, I've found it unconvincing. We don't have any complete physical models on the origins of the physical universe, so we can't say that physics has reached the point where it can determine the universe had a beginning. (You might wonder if the Big Bang theory is proof that the universe had a beginning, but the answer is that it doesn't. The BB theory results from the FLRW metric in General Relativity, and GR is an incomplete model of the physical universe). I also disagree with the inference that if the universe had a cause, then that cause must be god, given the plethora of tentative physical models from quantum gravity explaining the origins of the universe atheistically.

[36 Camera Perspective]

It is actually. Simplest explanation is the most acceptable.

*All other things being equal.

[Vault-Tec Headquarters]

It is actually. Simplest explanation is the most acceptable.

That's not Occam's razor. That's a teenage misunderstanding of Occam's razor.

Occam's razor states that the explanation with the fewest unjustified assumptions is preferential.

>Nitpicks an argument rather than targeting the entirety


Best debater on NS, mates.

[Quokkastan]

That's not Occam's razor. That's a teenage misunderstanding of Occam's razor.

Occam's razor states that the explanation with the fewest unjustified assumptions is preferential.

>Nitpicks an argument rather than targeting the entirety


Best debater on NS, mates.

Since it is the foundation of your stance, I thought attacking it was appropriate. There's no point in commenting on all of the things that proceed from a false assumption.

If you don't want me to do that, you shouldn't use it as an argument.

[Gjulich]

~snip~

The above proves why Occam's Razor is not the best measure for deciding how plausible an argument is.

For one, from any one point of view, someone may assign more assumptions to the opposing argument and less to one's own. For example, Vault-Tec's argument didn't even add in 'God exists', 'God cares about what goes on on a small green mite of dust in the sky' or any other argument. This means that, unless you have every human being in the world compiling the list, it will not difinitively bring an answer, and even then, it'll just be a race to find the argument with the least number of assumptions.

Moreover, assumptions differ between people who argue for or against them. For example, say I was the member of an ancient tribe and someone comes up to me and says "the stars are all very similar to our own sun. Some are even larger". I could use some primitive form of Occam's Razor to state that it's untrue, even though we know nowadays that it is true. I could say that, in order to assume that the stars are similar to our own sun, one must assume that the universe is very large (to have space for them all), that these suns disappear during the day unlike our own sun, that they reappear during the night unlike our own sun, and I could probably make more if I wanted to, whereas if I wanted to prove that they are just holes in a firmament, then all I'd have to assume is that there is a firmament, and that there are holes in the firmament. Occam's Razor has just proven this primitive person right, even though we know he's wrong with the evidence we have now.

So can we please stop talking about Occam's Razor? It's not a good measure for this sort of argument.

[Godular]

Huh. You seem a lot more relatable than a certain philosophy grad student who traipsed around here a while back.

Well, I love learning philosophy and explaining philosophy to other people, so if you meant that a previous user was arrogant with their abilities, you can be assured I won't reach that point.

And you actually use everyday language!

Previous guy was arrogant, overbearing, and seemed to operate as if a debate was simply some form of point-scoring exercise in which actual evidence couldn't be used because it was an argument from authority. 'Twas like watching a train wreck.

[New Grestin]

Yes.

It's a coping mechanism to survive in a harsh, cold, uncaring universe that is either indifferent or actively trying to kill us.

Unfortunately, most people haven't made their peace with this fact, and so the existence of organized religions will continue. Probably forever, because it's more comforting to think that everything is planned, rather than the reality, which is almost mind-blowingly depressing.

[Shimazu Teikoku]

I also disagree with the inference that if the universe had a cause, then that cause must be god, given the plethora of tentative physical models from quantum gravity explaining the origins of the universe atheistically.

It might be a bit unrelated, but what is your take on infinite regression?

[Godular]

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've spent years on the Kalam. I once accepted it as sound for a six month period, which illustrates my objectivity on the issue. Today, and for most of the time I've spent researching it, I've found it unconvincing. We don't have any complete physical models on the origins of the physical universe, so we can't say that physics has reached the point where it can determine the universe had a beginning. (You might wonder if the Big Bang theory is proof that the universe had a beginning, but the answer is that it doesn't. The BB theory results from the FLRW metric in General Relativity, and GR is an incomplete model of the physical universe). I also disagree with the inference that if the universe had a cause, then that cause must be god, given the plethora of tentative physical models from quantum gravity explaining the origins of the universe atheistically.

Damn. It's like watching a master painter at work.

[Shimazu Teikoku]

Damn. Its like watching a master painter at work.

Happy to be in this thread, mostly because we now have an insider on philosophy.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Well, I love learning philosophy and explaining philosophy to other people, so if you meant that a previous user was arrogant with their abilities, you can be assured I won't reach that point.

And you actually use everyday language!

Previous guy was arrogant, overbearing, and seemed to operate as if a debate was simply some form of point-scoring exercise in which actual evidence couldn't be used because it was an argument from authority. 'Twas like watching a train wreck.

I think there's definitely room for jargon if it refers to a serious concept--that way we can use a single word for an idea instead of always describing it by the components of the idea (I'd rather say "war" than "two or more hostile factions engaging in state-sanctioned violence for strategic purposes"). But I'm also interested in making philosophy relevant to the public, as too many professors are focused on their research interests rather than applying philosophy to the many facets of society it can inform. So I'm always trying to find ways to speak cogently for the uninitiated.

[Rechtsverein]

I've spent years on the Kalam. I once accepted it as sound for a six month period, which illustrates my objectivity on the issue.

Forgive me if it's a bit harder than that to build cred on the internet. There's no reason to posture: I'm an agnostic who doesn't accept the Kalam argument.

Today, and for most of the time I've spent researching it, I've found it unconvincing. We don't have any complete physical models on the origins of the physical universe, so we can't say that physics has reached the point where it can determine the universe had a beginning. (You might wonder if the Big Bang theory is proof that the universe had a beginning, but the answer is that it doesn't. The BB theory results from the FLRW metric in General Relativity, and GR is an incomplete model of the physical universe).

But the Kalam argument is not primarily a claim about physics - it's a claim about metaphysics. It hinges critically on the impossibility of an actual infinite, not on some contingent facts about the Big Bang.

I also disagree with the inference that if the universe had a cause, then that cause must be god,

This implies that 'god' is just an ad hoc hypothesis offered at the end of the cosmological argument, god-of-the-gaps-style. But it isn't: advocates of Kalam claim to be able to deduce God from the necessary properties of a First Cause.

given the plethora of tentative physical models from quantum gravity explaining the origins of the universe atheistically.

These arguments do not explain the origins of the universe. They explain the origins of a physical iteration of the universe. The question is not 'why does the world exist as it does?', but 'why is there a world at all?'.

People like Lawrence Krauss are fundamentally confused about the parameters of this debate, because they don't understand philosophy. They don't understand that the question is not about how the form of being has changed over time, but about the conditions for the possibility of being-and-time as such.

[Shimazu Teikoku]

-

[Jumalariik]

Considering the amount of great arguments for God, especially the Cosmological Argument and the Kalam Cosmological Argument, (which is kind of the same) I think that saying it's inherently illogical is silly. Anything that is logically consistent within itself is logical, which regardless of if these arguments are correct, both arguments are consistent within themselves.

[Vault-Tec Headquarters]

~snip~

The above proves why Occam's Razor is not the best measure for deciding how plausible an argument is.

For one, from any one point of view, someone may assign more assumptions to the opposing argument and less to one's own. For example, Vault-Tec's argument didn't even add in 'God exists', 'God cares about what goes on on a small green mite of dust in the sky' or any other argument. This means that, unless you have every human being in the world compiling the list, it will not difinitively bring an answer, and even then, it'll just be a race to find the argument with the least number of assumptions.

Moreover, assumptions differ between people who argue for or against them. For example, say I was the member of an ancient tribe and someone comes up to me and says "the stars are all very similar to our own sun. Some are even larger". I could use some primitive form of Occam's Razor to state that it's untrue, even though we know nowadays that it is true. I could say that, in order to assume that the stars are similar to our own sun, one must assume that the universe is very large (to have space for them all), that these suns disappear during the day unlike our own sun, that they reappear during the night unlike our own sun, and I could probably make more if I wanted to, whereas if I wanted to prove that they are just holes in a firmament, then all I'd have to assume is that there is a firmament, and that there are holes in the firmament. Occam's Razor has just proven this primitive person right, even though we know he's wrong with the evidence we have now.

So can we please stop talking about Occam's Razor? It's not a good measure for this sort of argument.

I mentioned earlier Occam's razor is a bad argument. Thanks for backing that up for me.

[Quokkastan]

Considering the amount of great arguments for God, especially the Cosmological Argument and the Kalam Cosmological Argument, (which is kind of the same) I think that saying it's inherently illogical is silly. Anything that is logically consistent within itself is logical, which regardless of if these arguments are correct, both arguments are consistent within themselves.

You mean the argument that conflates ex nihilo creation and material causation, and hopes you won't notice?

Because I don't consider that "great" outside of the context of "impressive that it's managed to fool so many people."

[Godular]

Considering the amount of great arguments for God, especially the Cosmological Argument and the Kalam Cosmological Argument, (which is kind of the same) I think that saying it's inherently illogical is silly. Anything that is logically consistent within itself is logical, which regardless of if these arguments are correct, both arguments are consistent within themselves.

You mean the argument that conflates ex nihilo creation and material causation, and hopes you won't notice?

Because I don't consider that "great" outside of the context of "impressive that it's managed to fool so many people."

Well-tossed word salad.

[Shimazu Teikoku]

I mentioned earlier Occam's razor is a bad argument. Thanks for backing that up for me.

Then why did you spam it?
I found it counterproductive for this thread.

[The first Galactic Republic]

-Bump-

-Pulls up lawn Chair, pops some popcorn, and sips a cherry coke-

This gonna be gud.

Do people make these just to stir shit?

Hard to prove sure but that's rule breaking.