Is religion/belief in a god inherently illogical

[Conscentia]

What would it mean for time to exist "because of God"? How is that distinct from saying that 'God created time'?

Only in that it removes the implication of a linear sequence of events. Time could exist simultaneously with God, but God, being unhindered by a strictly linear understanding of time, may spontaneously cause the existence of time without having to exist prior to it.

That deals with the absurdity of God preceding the existence of time by placing God within time, but I don't see how it addresses my argument. I'll clarify...

To cause the existence of time is a change - the non-existent becomes existent - and change involves a difference over time. Thus to cause the existence of time necessitates the existence of time, and so to cause the existence of time is paradoxical. By extension a "god" that created the universe is illogical, as time is an aspect of the universe.

The problem is the non-existence of time, not the apparent linearity of time. Without time, there is no change, and without change there is no causation. Change requires a difference between two points of time, regardless of the order of those two points. There is no point in time for which time did not exist, so there can be no such change as causing the existence of time.

[Godular]

Hokay... Now that I am finally at my computer rather than my iPhone, I can deal with this one post...

1) There is no evidence of irreducible complexity, unless you define irreducible complexity as keeping the same function, since evolution makes no claim as to keeping the same function as it changes over time, irreducible complexity is thus useless.

There is strong evidence for irreducible complexity. Remove critical parts of an organism's gentic code, and it no longer functions. Even at the simplest level, this is true. Since it is incredibly unlikely that the first primitive cell or virus was generated with a complete genetic code, it must have had its code assembled in successive processes... which leaves a non-functioning organism. Irreducible complexity.

Life didn't use DNA at first, it used RNA which forms from groups of amino acids that tend to spontaneously form long chains. No assembly required, it happens automatically in the conditions that prevailed on Earth at the time. After a while, one strand of RNA among millions would have hit on a winning combination. We can explain how cell membranes began, how mitochondria and other organelles came to exist, and pretty much everything related to the cell.

In any event, what you stated is not in fact evidence of anything. Much like any other form of creationist argument you focus on trying to tear down the evidence that exists rather than produce your own. Like those clarion calls of 'BUT THE FLAGELLUM!' and 'BUT THE EYE!', it is little more than claiming that something is too well constructed to be attributed to chance, without cause to do so.

oh yeah, here's one link I'll present to assist in explaining this particular thingie: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

2) There need not be evidence of it elsewhere in the universe, there is examples of it right here, or are you claiming that dolphins and other apes are not intelligent.

I am not claiming that. Dolphins are very intelligent. So are apes. I don't know if I would say they are sapient, as apes at least have been able to communicate with humans for decades and they show rather pitiful reasoning skills... they don't ask questions, they don't have philosophy, and they don't make scientific experiments or advancements. One would think even the most primitive sapient lifeforms would display these traits when interacting with a more advanced race.

Silly animals. How dare they not act like us humans when given the capacity!

Regardless, the Earth really does seem to be a location set apart by God in the universe: even where we would expect extraterrestrial life, there is no evidence of it.

One does not follow from the other. "We have not yet found signs of extraterrestrial life" does not mean "We're God's special creation!"

3) The evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is actually rather sketchy

It is better than most other historical figures within a similar timeframe.

, and even if there was evidence for a Jesus of Nazareth, there is no evidence for the things claimed in the bible, or that he was god. So no it is not logical.

There is quite a bit of evidence that he was God, especially because the Bible provides such evidence. And the evidence for the veracity of Gospels is quite strong.

Perhaps I should just repeat my arguments here for the sake of jumping to the point:
1) We have modern translations of the Gospels.
2) We know these translations are accurate and have remained almost completely unchanged since they were written. The earliest complete New Testaments date to A.D. 350, but the earliest manuscript fragment (Part of John) dates back as far as A.D. 117, possibly as early as A.D. 98. This is only about 60 years after Jesus died, and only about 8-27 years after the gospel of John is believed to have been written by most scholars. The original manuscript may have still been around at that time, or even copies made directly from the original, so it is unlikely any significant changes occurred. As for the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, the two complete New Testaments, we can easily check our modern Bibles against them. The result is that many biblical scholars have said that the Bible is essentially the same now as when it was written. Compare to the Quran, where Sahih Bukhari records that there were disagreements on what the Quran said after Mohammed's death, and an official version was made, with all disagreeing versions systematically destroyed. This is only one example, and while other religions may have had their works preserved accurately, I merely want to show that the Gospels were.

3) We know these Gospels were written shortly after the life of Jesus, when eyewitnesses were still around. As noted above, the gospel of John, considered the last one written, is believed written by A.D. 90 or so. Mark is considered the earliest, at A.D. 70ish, only 30 years after the events of which it speaks.

4) We know the Gospels claim to be eyewitness testimony. That means a lot. After all, just 30 years after Jesus died, we have a book written claiming to be his autobiography, and it claims Jesus was the son of God. That's pretty significant, especially in regards to later points.

5) We know that these accounts were taken seriously by some at the time, even though eyewitnesses could have contradicted the Gospels if they were false. Christians took it seriously. They believed these account to be true, even though they could have asked people who would have been in Judea at the time Jesus was there to ask of these stories were true. If an autobiography of John F. Kennedy came out in 1994 saying that he performed miracles and was God, don't you think people would ask someone they knew was there if it were true? Wouldn't accounts record that it was a lie? Furthermore, Josephus was a contemporary historian who recorded the death of James, the brother of Jesus, at the hands of Ananias the High priest. This is in his The Antiquities (20.200), written about A.D. 93.

6) We know contemporary accounts record that early followers of the Gospels were willing to die rather than say they were false. This is fundamentally different from a suicide bomber dying for a lie which he believes to be true. No, I'm saying that people who could have checked to see if the Gospels were lies (including Jesus' own brother, who would have known if Jesus was God or not) said that they were not lies, and would rather die than admit it. Would you die for something you knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be a lie?

7) We know contemporary historical accounts record that Jesus really lived and was crucified. Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger all record events regarding the followers of Jesus Christ, who was crucified. As for Josephus, the passage is 20.200, and Edwin Yamauchi, who holds a doctorate in Mediterranean studies from Brandies University, among other accomplishments, says this of the passage: "I know of no scholar who has successfully disputed this passage. L.H. Feldman noted that if this had been a later Christian addition to the text, it would have likely been more laudatory of James."

8 ) We know that Jesus could not have survived crucifixion.

9) We know that dozens of Jesus' followers claimed to have seen him alive after he died. They would have known with absolute certainty if they saw Jesus alive or not.

10) We know were willing to die for these beliefs, even though they had a way of knowing with certainty whether it was false or not. They chose to die for something they either knew to be complete BS (which is stupid, you don't choose to die over stuff you made up) or knew to be complete truth.

11) We know despite the ability of Jewish leaders to produce a body if Jesus really was dead, they did not. They obviously cared enough to execute him and his followers, something claimed even in their own records (the Talmud, and Josephus was a Jew as well).

12) We know the Jews had compelling reasons to discredit Christianity, but even Jewish accounts record Jesus performed miracles (through sorcery, they say)

13) We know Jesus could not have performed miracles or resurrected except by supernatural power. There is no natural explanation for Jesus coming back to life. Therefore supernatural.

14) We know Jesus claimed in the Gospels that he had this power because he was the Son of God.

15) Therefore, we know Jesus is God.

Obviously, Jesus could only have been God, or everyone in all of ancient Judea had a mass halucination.

The level of citation drops of towards the latter arguments, but that's because I never finished organizing all my arguments into one neat post. You get the picture, right? If not I'll dig up my old defenses of those arguments.

The bible isn't a reliable source. Given the rather large number of unsubstantiated components, its factual integrity is rather easily dismissed.

[Freakoland]

What do y'all think of the concept of God outside reality? Basically, (this is of course theoretical, so I might sound foolish) that God created a system in which the necessity of an omnipotent force was completely absent?

[Lost Memories]

What do y'all think of the concept of God outside reality? Basically, (this is of course theoretical, so I might sound foolish) that God created a system in which the necessity of an omnipotent force was completely absent?

Like the deterministic version of God, where it acts like a writer and the book it writes is the universe?

[Cheongji]

What do y'all think of the concept of God outside reality? Basically, (this is of course theoretical, so I might sound foolish) that God created a system in which the necessity of an omnipotent force was completely absent?

I think if the concept of omnipotency were completely absent, we wouldn't be able to survive in this world.

[Ashmoria]

What do y'all think of the concept of God outside reality? Basically, (this is of course theoretical, so I might sound foolish) that God created a system in which the necessity of an omnipotent force was completely absent?

what would be the difference between that and not existing at all?

[Neutraligon]

What do y'all think of the concept of God outside reality? Basically, (this is of course theoretical, so I might sound foolish) that God created a system in which the necessity of an omnipotent force was completely absent?

How does one exist outside reality? What does outside reality mean?

[Heralin]

Well, I would stand to guess that belief in any type of religion and all of its values wouldn't be illogical to those that follow it as well, but anyone outside of it could look at it as completely manic or perhaps any other type of description of insane, weird, strange or anything along those lines. It's not just from communities that do not believe in religion, but also from those in other religions that look upon each others values with their own type of opinions.

[Llamalandia]

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.

Well seems like religion is necessary for an absolute or at least nearly absolute morality to exist. eg Ten Commandments, if you go hardcore in interpretation of that'll shalt not kill, then killing for any reason is impermissable. Doesn't matter if your being torture, or if you are told to kill to save yourself or others or hell even the whole human race. ITs hard to see where people would derive absolute morals from a purely logical rational system. After all if you can save ten innocencent lives by killing one person, logically it is moral to kill that one person.

[Gjulich]

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.

Well seems like religion is necessary for an absolute or at least nearly absolute morality to exist. eg Ten Commandments, if you go hardcore in interpretation of that'll shalt not kill, then killing for any reason is impermissable. Doesn't matter if your being torture, or if you are told to kill to save yourself or others or hell even the whole human race. ITs hard to see where people would derive absolute morals from a purely logical rational system. After all if you can save ten innocencent lives by killing one person, logically it is moral to kill that one person.

If absolute morals exist, then they are not laid out in any religion on Earth today.

[Freakoland]

What do y'all think of the concept of God outside reality? Basically, (this is of course theoretical, so I might sound foolish) that God created a system in which the necessity of an omnipotent force was completely absent?

How does one exist outside reality? What does outside reality mean?

I mean outside of the universe. This would mean that God would of engineered the universe to function as if he were non-existent. Kind of like how an author writes a book.

[Freakoland]

What do y'all think of the concept of God outside reality? Basically, (this is of course theoretical, so I might sound foolish) that God created a system in which the necessity of an omnipotent force was completely absent?

what would be the difference between that and not existing at all?

The difference would be that God does not exist in our visualization of the universe, but outside it.

[Jolthig]

I think the evidence for a god points to the other way around. Especially when we research more and more into investigating how the universe works. The more we investigate, the more the idea of a creator god is eliminated. Especially of that of the Abrahamic God.

[Major-Tom]

Oh boy, this can of worms. I cant wait to see edgy preteen dawkins worshippers and christian fundies come out of the woodwork to denounce anyone that believes differently from them as either "idiotic" or "blasphemous".

For once.....I agree with you, and its on a topic that is normally controversial. Meh, you know what they say about broken clocks...

[Gjulich]

Oh boy, this can of worms. I cant wait to see edgy preteen dawkins worshippers and christian fundies come out of the woodwork to denounce anyone that believes differently from them as either "idiotic" or "blasphemous".

For once.....I agree with you, and its on a topic that is normally controversial. Meh, you know what they say about broken clocks...

The reason it's so widespread and well known as an argument is because it's an important one to have.

[Quokkastan]

What do y'all think of the concept of God outside reality? Basically, (this is of course theoretical, so I might sound foolish) that God created a system in which the necessity of an omnipotent force was completely absent?

It's an ad hoc argument created to preserve the idea that belief in a god could be accurate, by sacrificing all of religion.

Kind of pointless, in my view.

[Nacesa Plana]

The parents of a baby with anencephaly will feel relieved with this loving gift.

It's what most traditionalist theologians and priests would assume they would feel.

Basically, it's still the pie-in-the-sky argument, only wrapped in logics. The problem, of course, are the unwarranted assumptions.

It looks a bit like drunken marginals who beat their wives. Out of love of course. Sometimes these women really believe their men and feel like they deserve it.

However, there is no excuse to beat another person except in self-defense. Wife beating is a crime in most countries.

So is torture.

[Lady Scylla]

Not all Christians are Trinitarian so that falls rather flat.

It's generally accepted that, because unitarians reject the Nicene Creed, the statement of Christian faith, that they are not technically included in Christianity.

Interesting, considering they're commonly referred to as Unitarian Christians.

[Risottia]

It's what most traditionalist theologians and priests would assume they would feel.

Basically, it's still the pie-in-the-sky argument, only wrapped in logics. The problem, of course, are the unwarranted assumptions.

It looks a bit like drunken marginals who beat their wives. Out of love of course. Sometimes these women really believe their men and feel like they deserve it.

However, there is no excuse to beat another person except in self-defense. Wife beating is a crime in most countries.

So is torture.

Yeah, but you see, when you introduce the otherworldly reward, you can claim there's a greater good without having to show proof for it: instead, you get to call "infidel" or "heretic" on anyone who argues against the validity of your claim.

[Risottia]

I mean outside of the universe.

Just as time, space is a property of the universe. Hence "outside of the universe" makes no sense, unless you first define a space which contains entirely the Universe and define a topology on that space.

[Tenaltel]

In my opinion people use religion to gather hope that after they die they will have a sexond life which will be better. But I think once you die there is nothing which might be hard for some people to comprehend.

[Risottia]

In my opinion people use religion to gather hope that after they die they will have a sexond life which will be better. But I think once you die there is nothing which might be hard for some people to comprehend.

Well, to have a sexond life you need something which might be hard, I agree.

[Lost Memories]

I mean outside of the universe.

Just as time, space is a property of the universe. Hence "outside of the universe" makes no sense, unless you first define a space which contains entirely the Universe and define a topology on that space.

Since "outside the universe" is intended as "outside of the universe we are able to observe", no, you can't define what is outside of it, that's the catch.

It's a roundabout way to ask you if you can accept the existence of the unknown, or if you believe everything, even the 'unknown' can be known.
Talking about God with who believes everything can be known is pointless. Or it's talking about something which isn't God, if people still feel like talking about it while believing to be able to know it.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

Belief in a god isn't illogical.

But, logic is a machine. The output is limited by the input.

The problem isn't that belief in a god is illogical - it's that the axiom is not really fit for purpose.

[Kilobugya]

Depends what you mean with "god" and "religion".

If a god is a "omnipowerful, omniscient, omnibenevolent" entity like the Christian god, then yes, it's inherently illogical - can God create something strong enough so God cannot destroy it ? Whatever the answer is, God isn't omnipowerful - bascially "omnipowerful" is not compatible with Goedel's incompletness theorem. And there is no logical solution to theodicy, omnipowerful and omnibenevolent god isn't logically compatible with the state of the world.

If a god is a "conscious entity that created the universe and fixed its rule", then it's not illogical - after all, the known universe can very well be a simulation, or have been engineered in some ways from "outside" of it. There is no evidence pointing towards it, so it might be irrational to believe it, but it's not illogical.

As for religion (a set of codified beliefs that has to be believed even without sufficient evidence)... all existing religions are logically inconsistent, they contain internal contradictions and contradictions with the state of the world, but that's necessarily the case. It's not rational to believe things without sufficient evidence, but it doesn't have to be illogical (logically inconsistent). It just usually is, for the same reason most novels, movies and series aren't fully logically consistent - it's hard to create something to be so, but not theoretically impossible.