|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/17/2008 11:56:44 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3265
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
It is a paradox. Only to those who apply illogical reasoning! 
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/17/2008 12:09:43 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
It is a paradox. Only to those who apply illogical reasoning!
Hmm, there is a problem with certain types of communication in writing, such as sarcasm, in that it can't be interpreted without sufficient context. I don't know if I have enough context -- notwithstanding the winky! -- to interpret who you are talking about.
However, I THINK you are saying that paradox would be a cause for anxiety if it wasn't for the fact that GOd spells everything out very clearly concerning creation, and that it is perfectly logical to follow the set forth in the Bible. Cool with me. That's not how I use the word logical, though, or paradox, simply because (in my opinion) I don't see them as endowed in principle with any "positive" or "negative" value. It's not a bad thing, in my opinion, to say that it is not logical to believe God but rather admits of the paradox of being unable to believe without help from grace, in my opinion, contrasted with believing out of apparent logical necessity. and stuff
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/17/2008 1:53:18 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Sorry, wayward1, but I have reread the OP and several of the initial responses and there is no mention whatsoever about "everyone's opinion"!
If it were possible for this thread to be about whether belief in God is ACTUALLY logical, then this thread would be the last shred of information required for all eternity for determining that there actually is a God. It can be logical to believe in something that is false, but when you discover the falseness of the thing, it will prove your logic to have been faulty. If your logic is "actually" not faulty then the thing you "logically believe" will have to be true. So this thread simply cannot be about whether it is ACTUALLY logical to believe in God. It must only ever be about opinions.
This thread is about "opinions" by default, because no "FACTS" exist regarding this matter. The original poster didn't say, "does anyone KNOW if it's logical to believe in God or not?" They said "Is belief in God logical" and then qualified it with details of a personal searching story that "resulted" in their "opinion" becoming "yes it is logical". Then some opinions were expressed in support of that opinion and others were expressed in disagreement with that opinion.
drmark, sir I'm sorry but your stance on this matter is only an opinion and that is all it will ever be. We are now engaged in the business of sorting out whether it's a viable one. Your repeated assertions that it is truth and not opinion at all will have absolutely no bearing on my decision about whether your opinion is well founded or rooted in need. I understand if this is inconvenient for you.
As I said, my assessment thusfar is that in this life you've been presented with unanswerable questions and you've elected to respond with unquestionable answers. The absoluteness of your belief only lends more credibility to my additional assessment that you are an intellectually honest man, struggling with conflicting rational forces. I mean only to share my perspective with you, and open your heart and mind to the truth that belief can be both real and illogical.
quote:
I can see now that you have hijacked this thread to provide a bully pulpit for your own personal philosophy of relativism and I will serve as an unwitting accomplice no more. Have a nice day.
If I'm not welcome to my opinion, how would you ever know if there was more truth available? What thwarts your interest in my truth? Where have I applied faulty logic? You get your certainty from a book that has sticks turning into snakes. Yet I offer no counterpoint born of magic. An opinion does not gain trueness as it gains people who believe it to be true.
quote:
Let me "debrief" you with one last point of Truth. God created Adam and Eve in a very good state, far from feeble, but with a free will to make choices. They chose to disobey their Creator and everyone since (including you and me) has also fallen short of God's glorious purpose for humanity. I bother because God has lovingly shown His grace to me by lifting me from this feeble life of sin. So it is no longer "my mind and ONLY my mind" that is responsible for who I am. I have the mind of Christ - 1 Cor 2:16. You, wayward1, may also have the mind of Christ, by the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit. And don't ever forget it!
As one sound minded man, I am as qualified to address this topic as any book, perhaps more so. You could have made the same argument with Koranic scriptural justification. You would not hear such justification from me and give it merit. So I will not hear such justification from you and give it merit.
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 7/17/2008 3:21:45 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/17/2008 2:03:10 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
quote:
a change of state requires *time*
Yes, but consider this:
Time requires a change of state. (Or perhaps a hypothetical static observer who can make "nonsalient" distinction between two identical states. I suggest He coudl do this by marking MOMENTS by SPEAKING -- or through some act that originated only from Himself that would thereby arbitrarily designate one state as distinct from another named state. That is, the distinction between static, identical states would be IN NAME ONLY.)
It is a paradox.
Even cogitation requires time. There does not have to be such as action of speaking. Just "being" would account for time. I still think the solution is found in scripture and not in logic. ALL exercises in logic either will be faulted as regards first cause, or faulted as regards what must have been, because it is usually based on what NOW must be. The thinking seems to go somehting like this."We have x, therefore x must have been."
"God is." There is no other requirement necessary to account for time always being. If God is understood to be eternal, how can time be any less? There must be time, for ANYTHING to "BE." It doesn't get any more basic than that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/17/2008 2:15:55 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
"God is." There is no other requirement necessary to account for time always being. If God is understood to be eternal, how can time be any less? There must be time, for ANYTHING to "BE." It doesn't get any more basic than that.
Yes, I agree with that. And I was also making the point that for a changeless entity there would be no salient or obvious ways to reckon or measure the passage of time. Such would be even more arbitrary then the way we reckon time, which is always tied to something objectively observable, such as the moon, sun, the periodicity of a spring, or radioactive decay. So reckoning time for God would amount to speaking about a moment, identifying it as distinct from others merely by writ or arbitrary identification. This ties, I think, the creation account of Genesis to that of John. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/17/2008 2:16:26 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: txparent
In the past year or so I've done a good bit of personal study because I began to ask myself whether it was logical to believe in a God or not. Long story short, the conclusion I came to was a resounding "YES". And I have to thank several excellent books for helping me along the way. These include:
1. What's So Great About Christianity by Dinesh D'Souza
2. There Is A God by Anthony Flew
3. The Language of God by Francis Collins
4. Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain by CS Lewis (of course)
5. The Case for Christ and The Case For a Creator by Lee Stroebel
The scientific and philosophic ideas I learned about pointed me resoundingly toward belief in a true, living and loving God. I grew up believing in God, largely because my parents taught me to do so. But I have no interest in a faith that I can't have confidence in.
I thought I'd write this to encourage anyone who has had any doubts about the existence of God. Sure, we're raised to believe the Bible, and we're taught to believe in God. But when people present us with logical arguments to the contrary, how do we answer them? Personally, I got tired of just saying "I believe what the Bible tells me" without any logical framework to support that conclusion. And I certainly wasn't in a position to reach out to people struggling with their own faith. Honestly, how do you start quoting scripture to someone who isn't convinced that the Bible is God's word, or even that there is a God?
Actually you are referencing two different concepts. You ask about logical rebuttals, which do not apply to "faith" issues. AND you ask about quoting scriptures in response to logic arguments. Do you see the disjoint? they are not the same classification of thought.
Is God logical? No! God is a matter of faith, not a matter of the result of man's wisdom. Remember, when the scriptures were presented to man, and for several hundred centuries, logic was not invented.
Logic is a mathematical term, invented to give a discipline to debate. It really has nothing to do with scriptural reality. Logic is comprised of premises and conclusions which may or may not reveal truth. Many premises are simple assertions. Assertions state facts. Assertions also state much that is false. The simple fact something is asserted tells you nothing about the truth or falseity of the thing asserted. It is similar to the use of the imperative to establish truth. It does not because lies are spoken in the imperative and asserted all the time.
So logic may or may not come around to an understanding of truth, but I can tell you one thing. Faith is not so fickle as logic. Faith is the ASSURANCE, not the belief, but the ASSURANCE of things hoped for. I will take that over logic anytime.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/17/2008 5:29:26 PM
|
|
|
SamSpick
Posts: 160
Joined: 12/13/2005
From: England
Status: offline
|
quote:
Even cogitation requires time. There does not have to be such as action of speaking. Just "being" would account for time.
Even the cogitation of God? What makes you qualified to say such a thing? Cogitation is a human concept with application amongst humans but *cannot* be legitimately applied to that which you have no conception. Unless you claim to conceive of the mind of God? Yet another claiming absolute divine wisdom around here wouldn't be surprising...
_____________________________
Of all your limitations, the greatest are the ones you don't even know about.
We cannot be judged guilty for our deviation from the alien moral code of our conqueror.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/17/2008 5:36:39 PM
|
|
|
SamSpick
Posts: 160
Joined: 12/13/2005
From: England
Status: offline
|
quote:
If God is understood to be eternal, how can time be any less?
IMO, God is not eternal, rather God is atemporal. Thus the passage of our time has no effect upon God and God does not necessitate time.
< Message edited by SamSpick -- 7/17/2008 5:48:20 PM >
_____________________________
Of all your limitations, the greatest are the ones you don't even know about.
We cannot be judged guilty for our deviation from the alien moral code of our conqueror.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/17/2008 5:45:10 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SamSpick
quote:
Even cogitation requires time. There does not have to be such as action of speaking. Just "being" would account for time.
Even the cogitation of God? What makes you qualified to say such a thing? Cogitation is a human concept with application amongst humans but *cannot* be legitimately applied to that which you have no conception. Unless you claim to conceive of the mind of God? Yet another claiming absolute divine wisdom around here wouldn't be surprising...
Absolutely vital point here. In fact to even discuss this topic there should have been a point of clarification at the outset. Do you mean to ask if belief in your God is logical. Or do you mean to ask if belief in any god is logical?
The discussion is always about whether a particular sectarian definition of god is true or false. It would be difficult to get a Christian to ask "is belief in the Christian God logical?" though, since they have usually decided up front that that is the only God that is possible.
There is a bizarre narrowmindedness to the debate if we don't open the floor to God concepts outside of the Abrahamic God. I have forfeited a critical part of the argument right up front and you, SamSpick have highlighted it for me.
When they use the word "god", they unthinkingly default to the Judeo-Christo-Islamic definition... a definition that is not only inadequate but a minority definition across all of human history save the last few centuries.
Even "the flying spaghetti monster" or pure atheistic idea of God meant only as a counterpoint is little more than a parody of the Abrahamic monotheistic god. It still abides by the traits assigned to the God of Abraham. It makes for some effective arguments, but misses the opportunity of questioning those beliefs at the most important foundation: what does "god" even mean?
For "god" to be a meaningful term and more importantly for it to be established as universally LOGICAL, it must be defined in respect to what is common among all the many sectarian uses of the term. Since it is the specific sectarian differences that distinguish specific gods from other gods, those characteristics cannot be integral to the definition of a "logical god" itself. They may be useful for defining "Yahweh" or "Allah" or "Quetzalcoatl," but not for establishing a "god" as absolutely "logical to believe".
There is almost nothing in the character of the Abrahamic God that is common to all other definitions of "god." Not his unity, not his sentience, not even his role as creator. So none of those characteristics can be useful in defining a "god" in which it simply must be logical to believe.
Cutting to the chase... the only characteristic of "god" I am able to discern as being common across all definitions is the human purpose for positing a god or gods in the first place. Gods and goddesses have explained the operation of the natural world when natural explanations were not yet available. They have answered "currently" unanswerable questions, and naturally, they have fallen out of favor precisely as natural explanations became available for what they once explained. Throughout history they have explained why things are the way they are; why the sun moves across the sky; why the seasons change; why the rain falls; why volcanoes erupt; why the earth quakes; why the stars come out at night; why we die.
This role is served by every god or goddess in the human pantheon across all of history. And it is the one thing that every definition of god shares.
So... the definition of a "logical god" most sensibly is "the ultimate operator of the universe." Whatever natural phenomenon you choose, it ultimately extends through some causal chain to a profound and sublime reason "why." The "operator."
Whatever fits that definition is the one possible "god" in which it is purely logical to believe.
At present only one phenomenon remains without suitable natural explanation, and that is the majestic and mysterious origin of our beautiful universe. Very naturally, and in keeping with the whole of human history, a supernatural God is imagined by many humans to exist outside of our universe as the creator, the operator, to answer this last unanswerable question. To embrace this they must ignore or remain ignorant of the fact that there are countless instances where supernatural explanation has given way to natural explanation and not one instance in all of human history where the replacement has gone the other way; where natural understanding has been replaced by supernatural understanding, not one.
They are on the wrong side of history.
Some elect to ignore history and expect that this time, just for them, a natural explanation will not one day replace their current supernatural explanation. I do not. I understand that profound and sublime "why" to be natural law. Since time and time again natural explanations have replaced the previous supernatural explanations that were "supposed" by men who just did not yet know how all of those things worked. Since I believe that natural law exists, and since of all the possible entities that meet the definition it is the only one that I believe exists, it is natural law that I must consider to be "god." It is purely logical to believe in this god.
And since I believe that a "god" exists... I am by definition a "theist", with just as much right to speak to this subject is drmark or any other Christian. His musings about the necessity of belief in his version of God are telling, but not convincing.
I will never concede the definition of "god" to anyone else because that concedes the basic foundation of the discussion to my opponent. It presupposes entirely TOO much in my opponent's favor and that wouldn't be fair. If they want to justify their religion, they must first justify the character of their god. I will not give them a free pass on that responsibility.
Because fundamentally... the argument over whether a god exists or not is futile and useless.
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 7/17/2008 8:16:02 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/17/2008 5:47:28 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SamSpick
quote:
If God is understood to be eternal, how can time be any less?
IMO, God is not eternal, rather God is atemporal. Thus the passage of our time has no effect upon God and God does necessitate time.
And if "time" is definable in natural terms, then what use have we of a "beginning" of time.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/17/2008 6:09:10 PM
|
|
|
SamSpick
Posts: 160
Joined: 12/13/2005
From: England
Status: offline
|
quote:
When they use the word "god", they unthinkingly default to the Judeo-Christo-Islamic definition... a definition that is not only inadequate but a minority definition across all of human history save the last few centuries.
quote:
For "god" to be a meaningful term and more importantly for it to be established as universally LOGICAL, it must be defined in respect to what is common among all the many sectarian uses of the term. Since it is the specific sectarian differences that distinguish specific gods from other gods, those characteristics cannot be integral to the definition of a "logical god" itself. They may be useful for defining "Yahweh" or "Allah" or "Quetzalcoatl," but not for defining a "god" in which it is "logical to believe".
And YOU are a breath of fresh air across my soul... I'm not going to comment right now. I'm too stunned. I haven't read anyhing like that since...
_____________________________
Of all your limitations, the greatest are the ones you don't even know about.
We cannot be judged guilty for our deviation from the alien moral code of our conqueror.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/17/2008 6:47:33 PM
|
|
|
SamSpick
Posts: 160
Joined: 12/13/2005
From: England
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
quote:
ORIGINAL: SamSpick
quote:
If God is understood to be eternal, how can time be any less?
IMO, God is not eternal, rather God is atemporal. Thus the passage of our time has no effect upon God and God does necessitate time.
And if "time" is definable in natural terms, then what use have we of a "beginning" of time.
I'm afraid I'm not sure I understand but I'll have a go. If time is so definable, I suspect that you would now declare time as "god" or at least an aspect of god. So the question really is "what use have we of a beginning of god?" I'm not clear on the value of the question. Why must we have a use of it or not?
You remind me of somebody... does the word "manatees" mean anything to you?
_____________________________
Of all your limitations, the greatest are the ones you don't even know about.
We cannot be judged guilty for our deviation from the alien moral code of our conqueror.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/17/2008 7:19:40 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SamSpick
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
quote:
ORIGINAL: SamSpick
quote:
If God is understood to be eternal, how can time be any less?
IMO, God is not eternal, rather God is atemporal. Thus the passage of our time has no effect upon God and God does necessitate time.
And if "time" is definable in natural terms, then what use have we of a "beginning" of time.
I'm afraid I'm not sure I understand but I'll have a go. If time is so definable, I suspect that you would now declare time as "god" or at least an aspect of god. So the question really is "what use have we of a beginning of god?" I'm not clear on the value of the question. Why must we have a use of it or not?
You remind me of somebody... does the word "manatees" mean anything to you?
I was referring to the comment you had quoted. "If God is understood to be eternal, how can time be any less?
We have a pretty good understanding of "time" in natural terms, so I was merely stating that it is exactly as logical to believe the universe to be eternal as it is to believe God to be eternal.
I wasn't as clear as I could have been either way though. The person who said that seems to have reasoned along infinite regression lines without meaning too.
And no, the word "manatees" doesn't mean anything special to me. I must admit though, on certain themes I'm borrowing with permission from a very bright individual I know. It would be somewhat surprising if you know him also, but not impossible.
Perhaps you could pm me with details.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/17/2008 7:52:17 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SamSpick
quote:
When they use the word "god", they unthinkingly default to the Judeo-Christo-Islamic definition... a definition that is not only inadequate but a minority definition across all of human history save the last few centuries.
quote:
For "god" to be a meaningful term and more importantly for it to be established as universally LOGICAL, it must be defined in respect to what is common among all the many sectarian uses of the term. Since it is the specific sectarian differences that distinguish specific gods from other gods, those characteristics cannot be integral to the definition of a "logical god" itself. They may be useful for defining "Yahweh" or "Allah" or "Quetzalcoatl," but not for defining a "god" in which it is "logical to believe".
And YOU are a breath of fresh air across my soul... I'm not going to comment right now. I'm too stunned. I haven't read anyhing like that since...
Thank you. It's good to know my efforts are not entirely unappreciated. I've edited that post and included more careful explanation of my stance on the logical god.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/17/2008 9:19:54 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(theo) Even cogitation requires time. There does not have to be such as action of speaking. Just "being" would account for time.
(Sam) Even the cogitation of God? What makes you qualified to say such a thing? Cogitation is a human concept with application amongst humans but *cannot* be legitimately applied to that which you have no conception. Unless you claim to conceive of the mind of God? Yet another claiming absolute divine wisdom around here wouldn't be surprising...
Thanks!
Cogitate; to think hard.
Cogitation; meditation; contemplation.
cogitative; given to meditation, thoughtful.
I am qualified to say such a thing because I believe God's word, and it was GOD who said "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." [Isa 55:9]
I shall continue to believe God cogitates. And I shall leave the board to those who think they alone understand anything worth thinking about.
< Message edited by theo_book -- 7/19/2008 9:09:54 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/17/2008 10:07:09 PM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 10730
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
To the OP. Is believing in God logical.
Yes and No.
To the saved it is perfectly logical because we are faith based.
To the unsaved to believe in something that can't be seen is illogical.
_____________________________
Don't take life here to seriously. No one gets out alive.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/17/2008 10:18:44 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3265
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yet another claiming absolute divine wisdom around here wouldn't be surprising... How do you understand 1 Cor 2:16, SamSpick?
quote:
To the unsaved to believe in something that can't be seen is illogical. Do not the unsaved believe in love, or fear, or hunger?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/17/2008 11:32:58 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Do not the unsaved believe in love, or fear, or hunger?
Sure they do, but they don't assign special magical powers to love, fear or hunger, and they don't believe love, fear or hunger created the heavens and the earth. The words "love" "fear" and "hunger" represent feelings we all have that are not expected to be seen, so they don't require being seen for belief. Actually God doesn't require being seen either.
To the "unsaved" believing in something that can't be seen is not illogical at all. It depends very much on the thing in question and more specifically, what the "thing" is meant to be capable of... I can't see the wind either, but I can see the effects of its presence real time, and I can be reasonably certain it's there.
But the Abrahamic God's "invisibility" is the least of the reasons to consider it illogical to believe in Him for anyone, saved or otherwise. He could easily make Himself known without making Himself visible.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/18/2008 9:40:47 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3265
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I can't see the wind either, but I can see the effects of its presence real time, and I can be reasonably certain it's there. We see the effects of God's presence real-time and we can be reasonably sure He exists. This is simply logical!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/18/2008 10:22:49 AM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 10730
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
In my haste to post yesterday I used the term saved and unsaved. I do not believe these terms conveyed my meaning. I think believer and non-believer would have been much better. Even this may be confusing since the topic is the belief in God. But for a believer is is logical. As drmark pointed out above we see evidence of God everywhere so for us believers it only makes sense to believe in Him. However, to a non-believer this evidence we see as being of God is from another source altogether. Therefore, to them our belief in God is not logical. Did this make more sense.
_____________________________
Don't take life here to seriously. No one gets out alive.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/18/2008 1:30:13 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
As drmark pointed out above we see evidence of God everywhere so for us believers it only makes sense to believe in Him. However, to a non-believer this evidence we see as being of God is from another source altogether. Therefore, to them our belief in God is not logical. Did this make more sense.
To put it another way, God is deniable (sin.)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/18/2008 4:49:30 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Qtman
In my haste to post yesterday I used the term saved and unsaved. I do not believe these terms conveyed my meaning. I think believer and non-believer would have been much better. Even this may be confusing since the topic is the belief in God. But for a believer is is logical. As drmark pointed out above we see evidence of God everywhere so for us believers it only makes sense to believe in Him. However, to a non-believer this evidence we see as being of God is from another source altogether. Therefore, to them our belief in God is not logical. Did this make more sense.
You're absolutely right. Believer, non-believer, saved, unsaved, makes little difference really. The thread is about whether it's logical to believe in God or not. The thread needs God defined first, on strictly universal terms, not specific sectarian terms, but we should be beyond that now that I've explained it. That is if we actually want to get to the bottom of the OP. If we just want to assert why we already are completely certain that it's 100% perfect pure logic to believe in the God of Abraham then we don't need to discuss anything about whether or not it's logical. We can just dive back into our bible for some more infinite wisdom that serves our needs perfectly.
I'm sorry but the idea that your God killed Himself on the cross to save His own Creation from His own Wrath does not "add clarity" to the situation for me... Especially when I imagine him to have also created the universe. I'm sure it's very comfortable once you accept it, but it has little if anything to do with whether or not it is universally logical to believe in a God. Again, I still say that it is absolutely logical to believe in God but Christians don't have carte blanche on defining God. That too can be discussed like grown adults discuss anything. If you are of a mind to assert that the case is utterly closed on the matter, then why discuss it at all?
To the strictly logical individual the natural, prevalent and well document human tendency to see what we're looking for calls into question the validity of any argument for belief based on something like "seeing evidence of God everywhere". The assumptions made by an argument like that are many, but more importantly that kind of argument ignores the situation in the world. The evidence drmark speaks of does not lend one iota of validity to an argument for belief in the God Abraham and its ability to lend validity to an argument for belief in ANY God, except mine(see above for definition), is severely limited. The "evidence seen everywhere" would elicit universal belief in the God of Abraham, vice eliciting belief in many and varied Gods, if it was effective in establishing Him as the one true God. So we can stop using that as evidence for it being "logical to believe in the God of Abraham".
What about using that evidence for lending validity to a "logical belief in any God"? The "evidence seen everywhere" would elicit universal belief in "some god" if it were effective at establishing "some god" as absolutely logical. But clearly the world is crawling with unbelief. Things that are absolutely logical are things you have to break from reality to decent from. Things it is absolutely logical to "believe" in really don't need to be "believed in" at all. They can be "known about".
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 7/18/2008 4:57:04 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/18/2008 5:13:12 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
As drmark pointed out above we see evidence of God everywhere so for us believers it only makes sense to believe in Him. However, to a non-believer this evidence we see as being of God is from another source altogether. Therefore, to them our belief in God is not logical. Did this make more sense.
I think the problem precedes the belief that is derived from the evidence. First, the evidence is not what made beleivers out of the "faithful" but rather it is the fact they were taught it as babes by their parents.
In those cases in which parents did not so teach, the evidence becomes such that it is necessary to convince with testimony, as to the meaning behind the evidence; as well as the application that is slanted to make believers of us all.
In other words, the evidence if left to its own strength, would not have made believers in the Christian God. THAT is precisely why even God did not depend upon such triviallities to lead men to himself.
He depended upon a special revelation, given to specific and special men, and backed his revelation up with specific and special deeds that served to convince those with whom he was dealing at that time.
Id God logical? It is rightly said that "God" must first be defined. I think it is also necessary to first define "logical." Most people, and certainly some on this board, think of "logic" in the sense of "I understood what he said, therefore it must be logical."
I would question the originator of the thread, as to what he meant by his question, as to what "logical" means.
quote:
(wayward1) I'm sorry but the idea that your God killed Himself on the cross to save His own Creation from His own Wrath does not "add clarity" to the situation for me... Especially when I imagine him to have also created the universe. I'm sure it's very comfortable once you accept it, but it has little if anything to do with whether or not it is universally logical to believe in a God.
I think you have correctly put your finger right on the problem with anything based in "faith" to be considered as based in "logic." It becomes contradictory. Besides, it is not what the scriptures teach. God did not kill himself on a cross. Of course now it begins to flail like a serpent without its head, as contradictory doctrines come to the fore.
I do know that every civilization of man has believed in deity of some kind, so it would seem to be a universal need. "Logic?" I am not sure of that, but certainly a necessity.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is Belief in God Logical? - 7/18/2008 7:55:54 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
As drmark pointed out above we see evidence of God everywhere so for us believers it only makes sense to believe in Him. However, to a non-believer this evidence we see as being of God is from another source altogether. Therefore, to them our belief in God is not logical. Did this make more sense.
That's an inaccurate quote header. I did not say this
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
I think the problem precedes the belief that is derived from the evidence. First, the evidence is not what made beleivers out of the "faithful" but rather it is the fact they were taught it as babes by their parents.
Sure, among other things, it most definitely is not "evidence" that causes faith. That's a contradiction in terms anyway. Faith is what a person has when they can't or don't know. Evidence is used to help us "know" things.
quote:
In those cases in which parents did not so teach, the evidence becomes such that it is necessary to convince with testimony, as to the meaning behind the evidence; as well as the application that is slanted to make believers of us all.
Very hard to follow this.
quote:
In other words the evidence, if left to its own strength, would not have made believers in the Christian God. THAT is precisely why even God did not depend upon such trivialities to lead men to Him.
He depended upon a special revelation, given to specific and special men, and backed his revelation up with specific and special deeds that served to convince those with whom he was dealing at that time.
Yes, so specific and special in fact that thousands of years after the revelation many corners of the earth are still utterly absent of the word.
quote:
Is God logical? It is rightly said that "God" must first be defined. I think it is also necessary to first define "logical." Most people, and certainly some on this board, think of "logic" in the sense of "I understood what he said, therefore it must be logical."
I would question the originator of the thread, as to what he meant by his question, as to what "logical" means.
Perhaps, but requesting a definition of "logical" opens the floor to interpretation for a word that needs none.
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
