Is religion/belief in a god inherently illogical

[San Marlindo]

Belief in God is metaphysical. It defies the laws of nature as we know them.

If you refuse to believe anything can exist beyond a) what you can perceive with your five senses, or b) document in some tangible way then you won't believe in God. Or extraterrestrial visitors. Or the Illuminati.

Martin Luther once said, "faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding." Perceiving or meeting God would destroy your perception of reality as you know it.

Ultimately it boils down to a simple question: do you want to believe?

[Godular]

Consistent only within the bounds of the parameters it sets for itself. Mayhap 36 could answer whether an argument with a poorly established foundation would still count as logical even if it obeys all the forms...

I haven't read the entire conversation between you two, but an argument can be logical (i.e. valid) even with totally ludicrous premises.

1) I am pregnant or god is a duck.
2) I am not pregnant.
3) God is a duck.

Here's another funny example of what validity can do. Because any "or" statement is true if at least one of its variables is true, you can add anything onto a true statement. I can take"Obama is the President" and add "or Hillary Clinton is a space martian, or Donald Trump works for the CIA", and that would be a logically valid move.

Huh. /thread then, I guess.

[Quokkastan]

Unless time outside 'our universe' works on a loop.

Universe, CAUSE THYSELF.

I don't know. Unmoved mover sounds more likely tbh

We are dealing here with a question so far beyond our ordinary experience that whatever small intuition we may feel on the subject is certainly not sufficient.

We are dealing with mind-boggling phenomenal cosmic power and process. Whatever the answer is, it is not something a middle-class Midwestern upbringing has prepared you to guess.

[Neutraligon]

Unless time outside 'our universe' works on a loop.

Universe, CAUSE THYSELF.

I don't know. Unmoved mover sounds more likely tbh

Basically you have to admit that it is logically consistent regardless of if it is true or not, making it logical.

However logic (atleast in this disccussion) is not just whether the line of reasoning is logical, but also whether the premises are sound.

[Jumalariik]

I don't know. Unmoved mover sounds more likely tbh

We are dealing here with a question so far beyond our ordinary experience that whatever small intuition we may feel on the subject is certainly not sufficient.

We are dealing with mind-boggling phenomenal cosmic power and process. Whatever the answer is, it is not something a middle-class Midwestern upbringing has prepared you to guess.

I'm not from the midwest. Your argument is therefore invalid.

I don't know. Unmoved mover sounds more likely tbh

Basically you have to admit that it is logically consistent regardless of if it is true or not, making it logical.

However logic (atleast in this disccussion) is not just whether the line of reasoning is logical, but also whether the premises are sound.

Sure. But the premises are up for debate and philosophers like William Lane Craig make very airtight arguments.

[36 Camera Perspective]

I haven't read the entire conversation between you two, but an argument can be logical (i.e. valid) even with totally ludicrous premises.

1) I am pregnant or god is a duck.
2) I am not pregnant.
3) God is a duck.

Here's another funny example of what validity can do. Because any "or" statement is true if at least one of its variables is true, you can add anything onto a true statement. I can take"Obama is the President" and add "or Hillary Clinton is a space martian, or Donald Trump works for the CIA", and that would be a logically valid move.

So it would be a logical argument. I'm not saying that the cosmological argument is true (though I agree with it), I'm just saying that it's logically valid.

Yes.

[Shimazu Teikoku]

Cause makes no physical sense in this type of idea. For something to be caused the condition present prior would lead to the conditions present at the next instance in time. However at t=0 there is no prior instance in time, so there there is no way for anything to cause anything else. The universe can thus not be caused to exist.

So as you say, the universe has no cause? Do you believe that the universe just exists, such as in cyclical time or in some other way?

[Quokkastan]

I haven't read the entire conversation between you two, but an argument can be logical (i.e. valid) even with totally ludicrous premises.

1) I am pregnant or god is a duck.
2) I am not pregnant.
3) God is a duck.

Here's another funny example of what validity can do. Because any "or" statement is true if at least one of its variables is true, you can add anything onto a true statement. I can take"Obama is the President" and add "or Hillary Clinton is a space martian, or Donald Trump works for the CIA", and that would be a logically valid move.

So it would be a logical argument. I'm not saying that the cosmological argument is true (though I agree with it), I'm just saying that it's logically valid.

But it isn't actually, as premise 1 and premise 2 are talking about different things.

[Neutraligon]

We are dealing here with a question so far beyond our ordinary experience that whatever small intuition we may feel on the subject is certainly not sufficient.

We are dealing with mind-boggling phenomenal cosmic power and process. Whatever the answer is, it is not something a middle-class Midwestern upbringing has prepared you to guess.

I'm not from the midwest. Your argument is therefore invalid.

However logic (atleast in this disccussion) is not just whether the line of reasoning is logical, but also whether the premises are sound.

Sure. But the premises are up for debate and philosophers like William Lane Craig make very airtight arguments.

I am sorry but no William Craig does not make airtight arguments...at all

[Quokkastan]

We are dealing here with a question so far beyond our ordinary experience that whatever small intuition we may feel on the subject is certainly not sufficient.

We are dealing with mind-boggling phenomenal cosmic power and process. Whatever the answer is, it is not something a middle-class Midwestern upbringing has prepared you to guess.

I'm not from the midwest. Your argument is therefore invalid.

Curses. You found the fatal flaw in my argument.

[36 Camera Perspective]

I'm not from the midwest. Your argument is therefore invalid.


Sure. But the premises are up for debate and philosophers like William Lane Craig make very airtight arguments.

I am sorry but no William Craig does not make airtight arguments...at all

No, but I don't think he gets the credit he deserves.

[Godular]

I'm not from the midwest. Your argument is therefore invalid.

Curses. You found the fatal flaw in my argument.

There there. I'm still fairly certain that the Kool-Aid Man is an avatar of Khorne.

[Neutraligon]

So it would be a logical argument. I'm not saying that the cosmological argument is true (though I agree with it), I'm just saying that it's logically valid.

But it isn't actually, as premise 1 and premise 2 are talking about different things.

Premise 1 is All things that begin to exist from something have a cause
Premise 2 is The universe began to exist from nothing
Conclusion the Universe had a cause

This does not ven get into the problem of what it means to have a cause when there is no time.

[Neutraligon]

I am sorry but no William Craig does not make airtight arguments...at all

No, but I don't think he gets the credit he deserves.

Considering the many flaws of his arguments, and the many logical fallacies of his arguments, I would say he gets plenty of credit, in fact, he gets all due credit.

[36 Camera Perspective]

But it isn't actually, as premise 1 and premise 2 are talking about different things.

Premise 1 is All things that begin to exist from something have a cause
Premise 2 is The universe began to exist from nothing
Conclusion the Universe had a cause

This does not ven get into the problem of what it means to have a cause when there is no time.

That's a different logical structure than Craig's version.

[Quokkastan]

But it isn't actually, as premise 1 and premise 2 are talking about different things.

Premise 1 is All things that begin to exist from something have a cause
Premise 2 is The universe began to exist from nothing
Conclusion the Universe had a cause

This does not ven get into the problem of what it means to have a cause when there is no time.

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is the first premise. This refers to matter in motion. You would use it to describe something like a chair being assembled into the form of a chair.
"The universe began to exist" is the second premise. This seems to refer to ex nihilo creation. You would use it to describe something like a chair appearing fully-formed in the middle of the room.

These are not the same thing. Comparing the one to the other is not justified, especially since we're not exactly brimming with examples of the second. We don't know what the properties of ex nihilo creation might be, we cannot infer them from matter being reassembled into different forms.

Curses. You found the fatal flaw in my argument.

There there. I'm still fairly certain that the Kool-Aid Man is an avatar of Khorne.

Khorne for the Khorne Flakes!

[Quokkastan]

Premise 1 is All things that begin to exist from something have a cause
Premise 2 is The universe began to exist from nothing
Conclusion the Universe had a cause

This does not ven get into the problem of what it means to have a cause when there is no time.

That's a different logical structure than Craig's version.

In Neut's defense, Craig is fond of rephrasing his arguments on the fly. I've seen several different versions.

[Neutraligon]

Premise 1 is All things that begin to exist from something have a cause
Premise 2 is The universe began to exist from nothing
Conclusion the Universe had a cause

This does not ven get into the problem of what it means to have a cause when there is no time.

That's a different logical structure than Craig's version.

But is at the core what he is saying.

The only example of something coming from nothing that we have is a universe, and even that is debatable. The only thing we have experience with that have had causes is something that comes into existence from something else. We have nothing except the current universe that came into existence from nothing (arguable), and so cannot make any claims as to whether it had a cause, because we have nothing to which we can compare it to.

And again, there is the issue of what it means to have a cause. A cause requires two points in time, and yet, the beginning of the Universe is supposedly t=0, and as such there can be no prior point in time, which means that the term cause is entirely useless here.

[36 Camera Perspective]

But is at the core what he is saying.

It's not though. It's not logically equivalent to his formulation, and that's serious.

[Godular]

There there. I'm still fairly certain that the Kool-Aid Man is an avatar of Khorne.

Khorne for the Khorne Flakes!

Magnificent.

[Jumalariik]

I'm not from the midwest. Your argument is therefore invalid.

Curses. You found the fatal flaw in my argument.

Yes. I ask that you now say the Shahada.

[36 Camera Perspective]

That's a different logical structure than Craig's version.

In Neut's defense, Craig is fond of rephrasing his arguments on the fly. I've seen several different versions.

Rephrasing your arguments is acceptable if they're logically equivalent to each other.

[Neutraligon]

But is at the core what he is saying.

It's not though. It's not logically equivalent to his formulation, and that's serious.

Ok describe exactly what his claim is, remember he has changed is wording before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeKavDd ... t#t=06m37s
That is one video in which Craig made the claim as I stated.
The issue is that he is making a comparison between things that come into existence from other things and things that come into existence from no thing. And then stating that because things come into existence from other things has a cause, and the universe supposedly came into existence from nothing, the universe has a cause. But this is a comparison of apples to oranges.

[36 Camera Perspective]

It's not though. It's not logically equivalent to his formulation, and that's serious.

Ok describe exactly what his claim is, remember he has changed is wording before.

Craig is saying (x)(Bx ) Cx). You're saying (x)(Bx *Mx) ) Cx.

(I'm using * to represent the conjunction of two statements, and ) to represent the "if-then" connective).

[Free People of the World]

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.

By their very definition, morals and compassion cannot be out of fear. And I think tha humans are moralistic and compassionate not out of fear of punishment from some god, but because we are inherently social creatures.