Logically rationalize God

[Computer Loser]

I'm sorry you're mad because I ended up preferring faith based rationalizations? It's not that I'm closing my mind to the logic or find it unsound. It's just that it's still largely ignored, because, well, yeah, it's not what people are using, so must not be what I really need. It's not what differentiates believers, so what does? Faith. I'm probably trying catholic church tomorrow because traditional christianity "feels good to me" if its any consolation.

Lol. Shut up

[ashlesha]

Lol. Shut up

I literally didn't do any of the things you're upset about in this thread except maybe not give the logic enough credit (with an apology since I asked for it), so I must have rubbed you the wrong way 6+ months ago. I could have opened the door to rudeness, but I don't remember it.

[xerx]

It's futile to use logic to justify the existence of God. While you can find logical explanations that are internally consistent, not one of them is empirical or empirically falsifiable, and using pure logic to make empirical deductions is impossible.

Religion has always been about raising certain emotions (both good and bad) in people—maybe the best mechanism humans have come up with, and it beats advertising to hell.

There's a great scene from the show Firefly where one of the characters tries to rewrite the bible to make it scientifically correct. The other character tells her: "It’s not about making sense. It’s about believing in something. And letting that belief be real enough to change your life. It’s about faith. You don’t fix faith, River. It fixes you."

 

[Computer Loser]

It's futile to use logic to justify the existence of God. While you can find logical explanations that are internally consistent, not one of them is empirical or empirically falsifiable, and using pure logic to make empirical deductions is impossible.

Eh I wouldn't call it futile.

Anything helps. It may not for person X but for person Y it may.

And yeah, impossible to empirically measure God so we gotta look at other stuff

Religion has always been about raising certain emotions (both good and bad) in people—maybe the best mechanism humans have come up with, and it beats advertising to hell.

For sure!!! There are different flavors, including guys like westboro that intimidates - works for some, hardly for most LOL

There's a great scene from the show Firefly where one of the characters tries to rewrite the bible to make it scientifically correct. The other character tells her: "It’s not about making sense. It’s about believing in something. And letting that belief be real enough to change your life. It’s about faith. You don’t fix faith, River. It fixes you."

Ahhhh… If only people could open their hearts and minds and give it a shot!

It will literally CHANGE everything, very hard to explain

And yes, the geeky science stuff comes together as well I promise.

I say this with nothing but love.

[Hitta]

It's futile to use logic to justify the existence of God. While you can find logical explanations that are internally consistent, not one of them is empirical or empirically falsifiable, and using pure logic to make empirical deductions is impossible.

Religion has always been about raising certain emotions (both good and bad) in people—maybe the best mechanism humans have come up with, and it beats advertising to hell.

There's a great scene from the show Firefly where one of the characters tries to rewrite the bible to make it scientifically correct. The other character tells her: "It’s not about making sense. It’s about believing in something. And letting that belief be real enough to change your life. It’s about faith. You don’t fix faith, River. It fixes you."

 

Over reliance on empiricism leads nowhere.

[xerx]

Over reliance on empiricism leads nowhere.

yeah it leads somewhere.

[sbbds]

Over reliance on empiricism leads nowhere.

"But time and time again you fail at understanding that hypothesis do not have to be built from the bottom up to be true. For example, if my hypothesis were that Aliens exist, just because the hypothesis isn't falsifiable by modern means does not mean that the hypothesis isn't falsifiable overall. Not knowing how to create a falsifiable test is not an excuse for calling something non-falsifiable. Just because something isn't scientifically falsifiable by modern means does not make it wrong. I don't think you get how hard it is to create an hypothesis which perfectly layers the variables in a way in which creates falsifiability. Also, because something has been tested via hypothesis testing does not mean a causation has been established. And often times, the tests miss the laws that govern both causation and correlation completely, mainly because variables haven't been isolated correctly even though we base the foundations on our society that they have been."

This is not a problem with relying on empiricism, but empiricism not cut with rationalism, which I'd argue isn't empirical at all anyway. A pure empiricist would just be a brain stem creature, or low-tier forumite.