Is religion/belief in a god inherently illogical

[Neutraligon]

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).

What is x, what is B,what is C, and what is M. Please be more clear.

[The New Sea Territory]

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.

Being a social creature is amoral. While not all morality develops from fear, most theistic morality in the west is followed due to the implication of punishment, divine or otherwise.

[36 Camera Perspective]

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).

What is x, what is B,what is C, and what is M. Please be more clear.

Yeah, I realized I should have made my symbolization more explicit.

B = begins to exist, C= has a cause, M= begins to exist materially

[Dagashi]

One would have a hard time justifying labeling Aristotle, Aquinas, and Hegel illogical for their heavily philosophical conceptions of God.

Simply because something is logical does not make it right.

[Neutraligon]

What is x, what is B,what is C, and what is M. Please be more clear.

Yeah, I realized I should have made my symbolization more explicit.

B = begins to exist, C= has a cause, M= begins to exist materially

You still have not defined x, is x=* in which case the first comment of (x) makes no sense.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Yeah, I realized I should have made my symbolization more explicit.

B = begins to exist, C= has a cause, M= begins to exist materially

You still have not defined x, is x=* in which case the first comment of (x) makes no sense.

"(x)" is predicate logic-ese for "for all x".

[Godular]

What is x, what is B,what is C, and what is M. Please be more clear.

Yeah, I realized I should have made my symbolization more explicit.

B = begins to exist, C= has a cause, M= begins to exist materially

And x can pretty much be anything, but in this situation we apply it to the universe... whereupon the basis would fail because we can't make claims about whether the universe had a beginning.

Did I sum that up correctly?

[Jumalariik]

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.

Being a social creature is amoral. While not all morality develops from fear, most theistic morality in the west is followed due to the implication of punishment, divine or otherwise.

No.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Yeah, I realized I should have made my symbolization more explicit.

B = begins to exist, C= has a cause, M= begins to exist materially

And x can pretty much be anything, but in this situation we apply it to the universe... whereupon the basis would fail because we can't make claims about whether the universe had a beginning.

Did I sum that up correctly?

Right now I'm trying to narrow down the distinction between (x)(Bx ) Cx) and (x)(Bx *Mx) ) Cx. Whether or not we can know the universe had a beginning is a separate issue relating to the truth of the premises rather than the form of the argument, which I am discussing with Neutra.

[Neutraligon]

You still have not defined x, is x=* in which case the first comment of (x) makes no sense.

"X" is predicate logic-ese for "for all x".

So if for all X that begins to Exist then has a cause (the only example of things which has a cause to begin to exist is of course stuff coming from something). Sounds like begging the question to me since we cannot claim that a universe has a cause. That is if a universe did not have a cause then it is not true that for all X that begins to exist it has a cause (assuming of course that the universe began to exist).

[Godular]

And x can pretty much be anything, but in this situation we apply it to the universe... whereupon the basis would fail because we can't make claims about whether the universe had a beginning.

Did I sum that up correctly?

Right now I'm trying to narrow down the distinction between (x)(Bx ) Cx) and (x)(Bx *Mx) ) Cx. Whether or not we can know the universe had a beginning is a separate issue relating to the truth of the premises rather than the form of the argument, which I am discussing with Neutra.

That's understood. I've already accepted that something can be logically formulated while being abominably erroneous. I'm just parsing how it applies in practice.

[Neutraligon]

Right now I'm trying to narrow down the distinction between (x)(Bx ) Cx) and (x)(Bx *Mx) ) Cx. Whether or not we can know the universe had a beginning is a separate issue relating to the truth of the premises rather than the form of the argument, which I am discussing with Neutra.

That's understood. I've already accepted that something can be logically formulated while being abominably erroneous. I'm just parsing how it applies in practice.

There is still a logic issue.
The begining is that for all things that begin to exist there is a cause. The problem with this statement is that if the universe did not have a cause then it is not true, thus it is begging the question.

[36 Camera Perspective]

"X" is predicate logic-ese for "for all x".

So if for all X that begins to Exist then has a cause (the only example of things which has a cause to begin to exist is of course stuff coming from something). Sounds like begging the question to me since we cannot claim that a universe has a cause. That is if a universe did not have a cause then it is not true that for all X that begins to exist it has a cause (assuming of course that the universe began to exist).

We are dealing with two distinct issues:

1) Is (x)(Bx ) Cx) equivalent to (x)(Bx *Mx) ) Cx? (this is an issue of logical validity)
2) Is (x)(Bx ) Cx) true? (this is an issue of logical soundness)

In respect to the first question, I assert "no". As for whether or not we can say the universe had a cause, that falls within the second issue, and if you want to dispute that premise, then the negation of (2) follows if your objection is correct.

(By the way, (x)(Bx ) Cx) is a premise, and premises can't beg the question, only arguments can.)

[Godular]

That's understood. I've already accepted that something can be logically formulated while being abominably erroneous. I'm just parsing how it applies in practice.

There is still a logic issue.
The begining is that for all things that begin to exist there is a cause. The problem with this statement is that if the universe did not have a cause then it is not true, thus it is begging the question.

Thing is, establishing base parameters isn't really a matter of logic. The logic can be sound, but if the foundation is not valid then it is little more than logically sound speculation. Sure, it may be 'logical', but it holds about as much practical weight as the flying spaghetti monster.

[Neutraligon]

So if for all X that begins to Exist then has a cause (the only example of things which has a cause to begin to exist is of course stuff coming from something). Sounds like begging the question to me since we cannot claim that a universe has a cause. That is if a universe did not have a cause then it is not true that for all X that begins to exist it has a cause (assuming of course that the universe began to exist).

We are dealing with two distinct issues:

1) Is (x)(Bx ) Cx) equivalent to (x)(Bx *Mx) ) Cx? (this is an issue of logical validity)
2) Is (x)(Bx ) Cx) true? (this is an issue of logical soundness)

In respect to the first question, I assert "no". As for whether or not we can say the universe had a cause, that falls within the second issue, and if you want to dispute that premise, then the negation of (2) follows if your objection is correct.

(By the way, (x)(Bx ) Cx) is a premise, and premises can't beg the question, only arguments can.)

Then all that is happening is a tautology, which while logical, is an entirely useless statement. Clearly if everything that beings to exist has a cause and the universe began to exist then it had a cause. It is also worthless statement and a useless argument. Part of determining if something is logical (at least colloquially) is determining if the premises are sound, and in this case the premise is not sound.

[36 Camera Perspective]

We are dealing with two distinct issues:

1) Is (x)(Bx ) Cx) equivalent to (x)(Bx *Mx) ) Cx? (this is an issue of logical validity)
2) Is (x)(Bx ) Cx) true? (this is an issue of logical soundness)

In respect to the first question, I assert "no". As for whether or not we can say the universe had a cause, that falls within the second issue, and if you want to dispute that premise, then the negation of (2) follows if your objection is correct.

(By the way, (x)(Bx ) Cx) is a premise, and premises can't beg the question, only arguments can.)

Then all that is happening is a tautology, which while logical, is an entirely useless statement. Clearly if everything that beings to exist has a cause and the universe began to exist then it had a cause. It is also worthless statement and a useless argument. Part of determining if something is logical is determining if the premises are sound, and in this case the premise is not sound.

(x)(Bx ) Cx) is not a tautology. Neither is (x)(Bx ) Cx), (Bx), therefore (Cx).

[Neutraligon]

Then all that is happening is a tautology, which while logical, is an entirely useless statement. Clearly if everything that beings to exist has a cause and the universe began to exist then it had a cause. It is also worthless statement and a useless argument. Part of determining if something is logical is determining if the premises are sound, and in this case the premise is not sound.

(x)(Bx ) Cx) is not a tautology. Neither is (x)(Bx ) Cx), (Bx), therefore (Cx).

Let see if I can explain this right, We have defined the set of everything that begins to exist and stated that everything within that set has a cause. We have claimed that the universe is within that set and as such the universe has a cause. We have simply defined the universe into having a cause, again a useless statement. One in which again the premises are not sound since again the definitions provided are poor to non-existent.

I understand that as far as the field of logic is concerned the claims are logical (maybe, depends on definitions and no definition of cause was provided). The problem is that colloquially for something to be logical, the premises also must be sound, and in this case they are not.

[36 Camera Perspective]

(x)(Bx ) Cx) is not a tautology. Neither is (x)(Bx ) Cx), (Bx), therefore (Cx).

Let see if I can explain this right, We have defined the set of everything that begins to exist and stated that everything within that set has a cause. We have claimed that the universe is within that set and as such the universe has a cause. We have simply defined the universe into having a cause, again a useless statement. One in which again the premises are not sound since again the definitions provided are poor to non-existent.

The argument doesn't define "the universe has a cause" as being true. In the argument form above, "(Cx)" is a contingent statement.

[Godular]

We are dealing with two distinct issues:

1) Is (x)(Bx ) Cx) equivalent to (x)(Bx *Mx) ) Cx? (this is an issue of logical validity)
2) Is (x)(Bx ) Cx) true? (this is an issue of logical soundness)

In respect to the first question, I assert "no". As for whether or not we can say the universe had a cause, that falls within the second issue, and if you want to dispute that premise, then the negation of (2) follows if your objection is correct.

(By the way, (x)(Bx ) Cx) is a premise, and premises can't beg the question, only arguments can.)

Then all that is happening is a tautology, which while logical, is an entirely useless statement. Clearly if everything that beings to exist has a cause and the universe began to exist then it had a cause. It is also worthless statement and a useless argument. Part of determining if something is logical (at least colloquially) is determining if the premises are sound, and in this case the premise is not sound.

1) If the universe had a beginning, it must have had a creator.
2) We cannot say whether the universe had a beginning.
3) We cannot say whether the universe had a creator.

That's what I read from 36.

Now, would presuming that the if in the statement is true without reason make it illogical?

[Neutraligon]

Let see if I can explain this right, We have defined the set of everything that begins to exist and stated that everything within that set has a cause. We have claimed that the universe is within that set and as such the universe has a cause. We have simply defined the universe into having a cause, again a useless statement. One in which again the premises are not sound since again the definitions provided are poor to non-existent.

The argument doesn't define "the universe has a cause" as being true. In the argument form above, "(Cx)" is a contingent statement.

And again a useless one, especially with the lack of definitions and the premises being problematic. So sure the argument is logically sound,

All elephants are pink
Nellie is an elephant
therefore Nellie is pink

Colloquially people would say this is illogical since elephants are not pink. As far as the actual logic, it is fine, but the premises are problematic. The thing is, the premises being problematic is still an issue when it comes to arguments for whether the belief in something is logical.

Then all that is happening is a tautology, which while logical, is an entirely useless statement. Clearly if everything that beings to exist has a cause and the universe began to exist then it had a cause. It is also worthless statement and a useless argument. Part of determining if something is logical (at least colloquially) is determining if the premises are sound, and in this case the premise is not sound.

1) If the universe had a beginning, it must have had a creator.
2) We cannot say whether the universe had a beginning.
3) We cannot say whether the universe had a creator.

That's what I read from 36.

Now, would presuming that the if in the statement is true without reason make it illogical?

Colloquially I would say yes.

[36 Camera Perspective]

The argument doesn't define "the universe has a cause" as being true. In the argument form above, "(Cx)" is a contingent statement.

And again a useless one, especially with the lack of definitions and the premises being problematic. So sure the argument is logically sound,

All elephants are pink
Nellie is an elephant
therefore Nellie is pink

Colloquially people would say this is illogical since elephants are not pink. As far as the actual logic, it is fine, but the premises are problematic. The thing is, the premises being problematic is still an issue when it comes to arguments for whether the belief in something is logical.

The technical term you're looking for is "sound", but otherwise I agree.

[Neutraligon]

And again a useless one, especially with the lack of definitions and the premises being problematic. So sure the argument is logically sound,

All elephants are pink
Nellie is an elephant
therefore Nellie is pink

Colloquially people would say this is illogical since elephants are not pink. As far as the actual logic, it is fine, but the premises are problematic. The thing is, the premises being problematic is still an issue when it comes to arguments for whether the belief in something is logical.

The technical term you're looking for is "sound", but otherwise I agree.

I would claim I was using the term illogical in the OP colloquially rather than using it within the field of logic.

[36 Camera Perspective]

The technical term you're looking for is "sound", but otherwise I agree.

I would claim I was using the term illogical in the OP colloquially rather than using it within the field of logic.

And that's perfectly fine.

[Godular]

The technical term you're looking for is "sound", but otherwise I agree.

I would claim I was using the term illogical in the OP colloquially rather than using it within the field of logic.

Ewww... then what justification would we have in snarling about people saying "IT'S JUST A THEORY!"

[36 Camera Perspective]

I would claim I was using the term illogical in the OP colloquially rather than using it within the field of logic.

Ewww... then what justification would we have in snarling about people saying "IT'S JUST A THEORY!"

I know it's a stickler thing to do, so I don't want to ruin everyone else's party. But in my experience, conversations end more fruitfully when terms are precisely defined and consistently used. Sometimes I witness two people arguing when they're really saying the same thing.