Logically rationalize God

[ashlesha]

Inspired by this (I can delete if preferred):

I don't "believe" in god, I think that its existance is the most logical option.

If you're anyone so inclined, please provide logic in favor of the existence of God.

If you want to share your disagreement or opinion that there's no God, please make another thread! Your viewpoint is valid and your logic is probably sound, but that's not this thread's intention.

[mclane]

[mclane]

To put it simply: the structure of the universe cannot have happened randomly. It is a directed effort (it even goes against the second law of thermodynamics). I assume you're an atheist, could you provide some evidence as to god's non existence?

[ooo]

It is a directed effort (it even goes against the second law of thermodynamics).

why? seems like the entropy is ever increasing

[ashlesha]

To put it simply: the structure of the universe cannot have happened randomly. It is a directed effort (it even goes against the second law of thermodynamics). I assume you're an atheist, could you provide some evidence as to god's non existence?

I'm not atheist, at least not in a deliberate way (more resigned). Maybe agnostic, something like that.
I'm a wannabe religious person, hence the thread.

[nanashi]

I'm not atheist, at least not in a deliberate way (more resigned). Maybe agnostic, something like that.
I'm a wannabe religious person, hence the thread.

do you want people to respond to and discuss/evaluate/disprove the peoples' replies of suggested possible logical reasons for the existence of a divine?

[Tonatiuh]

To put it simply: the structure of the universe cannot have happened randomly. It is a directed effort (it even goes against the second law of thermodynamics). I assume you're an atheist, could you provide some evidence as to god's non existence?

Another and in my mind better question is; would another institution make any difference?

[QueenTiger666]

could you provide some evidence as to god's non existence?

That's not how that works - the burden of proof would be on the person who claimed God exists. You use evidence to prove not disprove.

[mclane]

That's not how that works - the burden of proof would be on the person who claimed God exists. You use evidence to prove not disprove.

If you start from the assumption that God doesn't exist yes. But if you start from the other option it doesn't. The way I see it, it's like saying that the sky doesn't exist. Some people will say "hey, I see clearly that it exist", while a blind person could say that since they do not see it, it must be that it doesn't exist. That I believe is the fundamental difference between an atheist and an agnostic. I've found that pure atheists often have some beef with the +Ni/-Ne element(for some reason, either because it is not valued or in a bad position such as PoLR, ignoring or linked demonstrative, and/or because they experienced some sort of trauma that made them not consider the existance of god a possibility).

[QueenTiger666]

If you start from the assumption that God doesn't exist yes. But if you start from the other option it doesn't. The way I see it, it's like saying that the sky doesn't exist. Some people will say "hey, I see clearly that it exist", while a blind person could say that since they do not see it, it must be that it doesn't exist. That I believe is the fundamental difference between an atheist and an agnostic. I've found that pure atheists often have some beef with the +Ni/-Ne element(for some reason, either because it is not valued or in a bad position such as PoLR, ignoring or linked demonstrative, and/or because they experienced some sort of trauma that made them not consider the existance of god a possibility).

You always start from the assumption that he doesn't exist, similar to innocent until proven guilty.

[mclane]

You always start from the assumption that he doesn't exist, similar to innocent until proven guilty.

I already explained. I don't really want to continue this discussion or even interact any more on the forum for now. The forum seems to be experiencing a very low point both in activity and quality of discussion. And it's not due to the drama; there has been worse drama in the past, but things got done and things were explored and discovered. Interaction now mostly consists of unwarranted attacks (often on members that do not deserve them), sycophancy, sophistry, and useless things in general. This issue IMO would require some some drastic measures in order to be resolved.

Think I'm going back to lurking. Bye.

[Not A Communist Shill]

If you start from the assumption that God doesn't exist yes. But if you start from the other option it doesn't. The way I see it, it's like saying that the sky doesn't exist. Some people will say "hey, I see clearly that it exist", while a blind person could say that since they do not see it, it must be that it doesn't exist. That I believe is the fundamental difference between an atheist and an agnostic. I've found that pure atheists often have some beef with the +Ni/-Ne element(for some reason, either because it is not valued or in a bad position such as PoLR, ignoring or linked demonstrative, and/or because they experienced some sort of trauma that made them not consider the existance of god a possibility).

Atheism just means that an individual lacks a belief in the existence of gods - as they were at the time of their birth. Whether a person explicitly states a lack of belief in the existence of god is another matter.

Agnosticism however actually does require an individual to make an explicit judgement.

[mclane]

Atheism just means that an individual lacks a belief in the existence of gods - as they were at the time of their birth. Whether a person explicitly states a lack of belief in the existence of god is another matter.

Agnosticism however actually does require an individual to make an explicit judgement.

The image you posted is very good, but your writing is a bit nonsensical.

[Finaplex]

For me I always look at it from a evolutionary biological perspective nestled in an understanding of ecology. I also see some force, just on the periphery that is barely observed, yet always subtly present.

I used to be agnostic, then breifly a Christian, then an athiest, then back to agnostic.

See I don't think that random slow chance leads to the species diversification that we see today.

I don't think that the arrival of cell encasing and molecular gene replication could have developed and arrived on prehistoric Earth without some sort of unknown missing variables.

If it was as easy as chemicals and some lightening in a bottle they would have demonstrated it by now. No new life.

There is an idea flouting around that cells developed inside the latticed framework of certain types of clay. What this means was that LITERALLY life came from the dirt, molded from the clay...the same story as the Bible genesis story.

Lame logical people will explain this off as being just a neat chance, just random chance, that the story we tell ourselves about our origins could not possibly have anything real and insightful to say about the true investigated story, but wink wink I know better, because there are no coincidences.

They built a satellite, James Webb, that will be able to see further into the past time, sorry I meant into further distances, then Hubble ever could.

This means that we will be able to see time just after the Big Bang, within thousands of years. We will literally be able to see the beginning of the all macrocosm with our own eyes.

.........

I'm not sure I believe in God as He is portrayed in the personal God story. And I def can't beleive in the towering God in a cloud watching our moral failures and accomplishments, taking notes and dishing out just desserts.

I also can't believe in the God of man who picks and chooses who succeeds and who does not.

I can;t beleive in the God moving and shaping the elements as our raionality has firmly pierced these mysterys over the centuries.

Yet even still, to me, there is something going on beyond our ability to sensate it and I think that we won't be able to overcome some of the big hurdles in our current physics (the gravity issue for one, the micro particle exploration, I mean how many more are we going to find? the bimercural mind, the list goes on and on), without coming to terms with things that science has rejected for a long time. Necessarily rejected to escape dogmatism, but unnecessarily removes people's souls from spirit.

[Aeris]

How many years have humans been celebrating some kind of god, goddess, or any greater power? How many different worshiping ways have humans created to express faith? Each individual has a differing faith, and in a way, science can also be seen as a kind of religious thing as people will believe science holds the key to understanding the univers, sort of as religions do. There are so many, so if this higher power isn't true, it at least leads to the need people have for beliefs.
Spirits, gods, nature, the sun, demons, angels, and what not are all ways people have found to make sense of the world we live in, people are craving sense, to understand, they want to know why we are here. Some people think it's random and no higher power exist to lead the way, we have no proof of anything, beside a few people's very personal experiences. I guess we can all find proofs if we wish so.
For most people, religion seems to be more about where you were born, we tend to adopt what's around us, what we are told by the people who care for us as children. Of course, convertions happen.
In the end, I think religion, faith are personal matters that can bring people together if used on the basis of becoming a better person as each religion seem to contain some form of "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" which isn't the best thing to tell someone who hates themselves... wth brain... anyhoo.
All I am sure of about faith is that it should come from within and not without, i.e. putting your life in some guru's hands, it's why the toughest part of any spiritual teaching is to know when to let the student down, like a bird pushing its young out of the nest so they can fly.

I am also looking for faith.

[Computer Loser]

-something can’t come from nothing, everything has an origin/purpose for existing

-therefore, something started the Big Bang

-things usually come from things “greater” (ex babies come from parents)

-If the universe was created by something “greater” it makes reasonable sense that entity would defy physics and logic to create a Big Bang out of thin air (God)

-It’s hard to replicate any form of speciation/adaptation in the lab even when directed with intelligent scientists (ex: we can’t breed different species no matter how hard we try due to genetic limits) but evolution assumes it happened by random chance through sheer force of nature given a long period of time (some bacteria floating around to complex organisms)

[Finaplex]

-

-It’s hard to replicate any form of speciation/adaptation in the lab even when directed with intelligent scientists (ex: we can’t breed different species no matter how hard we try due to genetic limits) but evolution assumes it happened by random chance through sheer force of nature given a long period of time (some bacteria floating around to complex organisms)

See I agree with this whole heartedly. I spend a lot of time outdoors because of my nature and my professional work and I can tell people nature is fucking treacherous when she is really bad. the heat, the UV radiation from the sun, the frozen gases in the air, the wild temperature swings, the drifting geology, its fucking brutal out there, just the abiotic forces.

You look around now and see all sorts of life forms clinging to the land and they make it look easy now...but you wind back the clock and early Earth was fucking brutal and I really don't think people are fully comprehending just how heavy and unlikely the cards are stacked against chemical compositional life forms surviving and thriving, let alone even getting up and forming. Like that primordial pond must have been fucking crazy to have survived and spread across the planet and it just blows logistical common sense to think that a slow march from scum to multi-cell could have even happened..it blows common sense to even consider that scum itself could have even formed. How the hell did RNA-DNA whatever fuck else people want to hypothesize survived, even technically logistically DO IT..?

That's what I want to know.

[Adam Strange]

See I agree with this whole heartedly. I spend a lot of time outdoors because of my nature and my professional work and I can tell people nature is fucking treacherous when she is really bad. the heat, the UV radiation from the sun, the frozen gases in the air, the wild temperature swings, the drifting geology, its fucking brutal out there, just the abiotic forces.

You look around now and see all sorts of life forms clinging to the land and they make it look easy now...but you wind back the clock and early Earth was fucking brutal and I really don't think people are fully comprehending just how heavy and unlikely the cards are stacked against chemical compositional life forms surviving and thriving, let alone even getting up and forming. Like that primordial pond must have been fucking crazy to have survived and spread across the planet and it just blows logistical common sense to think that a slow march from scum to multi-cell could have even happened..it blows common sense to even consider that scum itself could have even formed. How the hell did RNA-DNA whatever fuck else people want to hypothesize survived, even technically logistically DO IT..?

That's what I want to know.

Re: the bolded, Yes, what species is so ill-adapted to its environment? You'd think we came from some other planet.

-Adam "the Martian" Strange.

[Sol]

as the God mb said a "general image" of all forces which create Universe in every moment
a metaphor by an image
there is a religious state of unification with the God. God is felt as allmighty loving light. it's an image. religious people understand that what they see is only a representation in their perceptions and feelings. God itself is said as beyond human mind. they may belive it's real much because in this state what they ask they later may get. as example of questions - is asking about other times - people get visions about the future. as prophets were named those who used alike technics to answer the questions - as they never mistaked they were named as prophets, the ones who talk with God. but anyone may do the same. this state can be achieved in common preying - by emotional concentration on God as it's understood in monotheism

this should be clear enough for logical approach and atheists, meanwhile fits to religious view also: system of factors of the creation - what makes the universe in the different moments of the timeline, reason-consequence links of objective factors which are known and unknown + trance psyche states which represent this system from the start of the time

[gone]

St. Thomas Aquinas attempted to do this through his 'Quinque viae' (Five Ways) from Summa Theologica (w. 1265-1274):

The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

[Singu]

Well you can only logically rationalize the consistency of a premise, so it's kind of pointless. So if the premise is that god exists, then you're going to logically rationalize that.

Maybe a better way is to explain why god exists. Why would things that it's explaining would make so much sense if god did exist.

But you can't prove it either way.

So you might want to stop hiding behind "logic" and just admit that it's always going to be an uncertain belief. But another pesky thing is that a belief could also be wrong

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Cuz the world has tempo and patterns and scientific laws governing it. It's not just some chaotic mess, or an interpersonal soap opera. Human emotion turns it into that way, or mixing the two- but the design and structure of the universe, that fits into logical temporal patterns- can be argued for the existence of a deity.

A wise person once said to me that, its good when you're bored. It's a very good thing. It means you are getting over your own adolescent emotion (but lets be fair and remember that hatred and arrogance are also emotions, not just feeling vulnerable) and you are joining the real world. And the real world is often just boring, logical and predictable. (If reality is either boring, depressing or terrifying- then we should celebrate when its boring, because that clearly is the best out of the three.) And because of this, you are now opening yourself up to life. You were probably deathly afraid of something because part of you wanted it to be romantic and make you feel good, and you avoided it because if the reverse turned out to be true, it would devastate you too much. But then you realized it most likely just fit some logical pattern, it wasn't about good or bad or about feelings- either way. So with this reasoning, people are in theory less held bondage by their own views- and develop a more clear mind to see things as they really are. I think we've all experienced that kinda, we were making something so big in our heads but then we faced it... it 'just was.'

Or maybe more eloquently speaking, the most divine and grandest of good human feelings probably comes from the most carefully woven threads of God's logic.

But it gets complicated cuz while the world does have those logical rules, as far as opposing personalities go- we all know there's gonna be draaaaaaama and emotional soup. I think many have tried to leave this world behind, but they find themselves getting sucked back into it- because logic alone only gets one so far. =p

[xerx]

The "prime mover" argument is logical—not empirical, but logical.

[Exodus]

Some good answers in this thread already. The universe needs someone or something to 1) originate it and 2) keep it in existence once it's there, with all its structure. Things change and we see that one moment they aren't, and the next they are. This isn't coming from us, so where is it coming from? Without God you're left without a fundamental explanation.

But you can't really get to faith based on logical reasoning. Ask Him to guide you, read some scripture, look for truth wherever you can.

[Tallmo]

Just some thoughts

- I think faith or "proof of God" easily gets in the way for getting closer to God. Then it's all about believing, and the emphasis is there, and it feels so constructed, artificial. Better to throw belief away and just admit that "I don't believe", and tell God to f**k off or something. Heresy can be good and refreshing. Then when belief is gone one might be able to experience things more clearly. And the religious instinct can come to life.

- I like the idea that reality is God. We are so used to reality that we don't see it that way, but reality is the ultimate authority over our lives, or over anything we do. It is also the great "Other", we don't really know what reality is, we just find ourselves in the middle of it. I think one could spend a lot of time meditating upon this trying to grasp it.

- As for traditional religion, Jung suggested that modern man can still hold on to Christianity if he learns to take it symbolically. You don't actually have to believe in fairy tales in order to be religious. The message can still speak to you and be a factor in your life.

[ashlesha]

Just some thoughts

- I think faith or "proof of God" easily comes in the way for getting closer to God. Then it's all about believing, and the emphasis is there, and it feels so constructed, artificial. Better to throw belief away and just admit that "I don't believe", and tell God to f**k off or something. Heresy can be good and refreshing. Then when belief is gone one might be able to experience things more clearly. And the religious instinct can come to life.

- I like the idea that reality is God. We are so used to reality that we don't see it that way, but reality is the ultimate authority over our lives, or over anything we do. It is also the great "Other", we don't really know what reality is, we just find ourselves in the middle of it. I think one could spend a lot of time meditating upon this trying to grasp it.

- As for traditional religion, Jung suggested that modern man can still hold on to Christianity if he learns to take it symbolically. You don't actually have to believe in fairy tales in order to be religious. The message can still speak to you and be a factor in your life.

I'm appreciative that people provided logic that I specifically, explicitly asked for, and I don't want to diminish that, but this post is the most helpful and meaningful to me. Thanks.

[WinnieW]

...please provide logic in favor of the existence of God

We humans are incapable of doing that.

Humans can't prove or disprove the existence of God.

Logic, rationality or the idea of God are constructions of the human mind.

A higher being can exist outside of human perception. What we perceive as real has it's limits by what our senses are capable of.

That lead us to the question: Are parts of the world we are living in not real because nobody is able to perceive all environmental parameters?

We can expand the ability our senses by using technical devices... but there are still sections of our world we don't have access to.
We humans are equipped with all abilities to survive in our environment... we developed additional abilities but gained no additional sensens.

Yeah, I've to admit I'm agnostic. I don't care about the existence of God.
And all rules we know are created by humans, not by a higher being.

[sbbds]

Human-esque (this includes, human-oriented) organization, as others have mentioned. I also happen to believe 'God' isn't just 'nature' or reality, but it's also oriented to humans and other close-to-human creatures, specifically, because:

I've also had at least one experience that was in favor of something big in my life in an incredibly specific lucky way, with statistically near-impossible chances of happening. This is something involving meeting others, so it's a shared experience in society lol. Everyone I tell this to is blown away by it. It's like I was looking for an invisible needle in a haystack, and I found it blindfolded with my teeth in a single grab, in terms of specificity and statistic chances. Can describe in PM if anyone is curious.

Other lower key uncanny things happen all the time to others I know and I.

To me this is sort of empirical, or as empirical as it'll get. Before I started having or noticing these experiences (when I was 17, and 23 for the bigger more specific one), I was more purely agnostic.

I also happen to believe that God is infinite (i.e. beyond "Big Bang"). The closest concept I guess would be infinite recursion.

[xerx]

If God exists, he's either a powerless wimp or an evil demon. There's too much crazy stuff out there to believe that an omnipotent God is some wise, benevolent entity.

[End]

If God exists, he's either a powerless wimp or an evil demon. There's too much crazy stuff out there to believe that an omnipotent God is some wise, benevolent entity.

Not really. There's this thing people forget about "God" (at least if we're talking about the Deity of Christianity). God *is* love. He loves you, me, that gray alien on Epsilon Segmentum Obscurus, etc. The key thing everyone just keeps overlooking is that he is also Justice.

Take the true and eternal love out of that equation. Imagine an entity, a deity, of only pure justice, of pure and omnipotent "law" sans any form of "morality" or "compassion" as we would understand it made manifest. Now imagine asking that thing what you deserve (or rather, not being given a choice in regards to having to ask that question of it). If you're not absolutely terrified at the prospect of that reality than you're either a narcissist, a saint, or a total idiot with a complete lack of imagination to boot and as saints are quite rare that kinda narrows it down.

Thankfully, for Christians like me, God is both so we have nothing to truly fear. Further argument on this front will, I regret in jest, require you to pass the Witch test. Key thing to remember about that is that you need not mean a word you type. Hell, you can even ask me to type words I won't mean for shit (i.e. ask me to say/type out the creed of another religion). Save, of course, for anything that hails the prince of this world and/or rejects God. After all, many a martyr were asked to do just that and they gave the correct answer. I will follow in their example.

[xerx]

Not really. There's this thing people forget about "God" (at least if we're talking about the Deity of Christianity). God *is* love. He loves you, me, that gray alien on Epsilon Segmentum Obscurus, etc. The key thing everyone just keeps overlooking is that he is also [B]Justice.

Respectfully, I disagree. I don't see how a three year old child dying from cancer deserves that fate. An adult with free will being served justice, I can accept, but the wisdom and benevolence of this self-appointed "judge," I just don't see it.

EDIT: I suppose one could conjure up some ad-hoc explanation: the little kid might be a Philosophical Zombie; this might all be part of some larger plan which we don't understand; etc. Regardless, I can't force myself to believe ad-hoc claims at face value without evidence.

[FreelancePoliceman]

Respectfully, I disagree. I don't see how a three year old child dying from cancer deserves that fate. An adult with free will being served justice, I can accept, but the wisdom and benevolence of this self-appointed "judge," I just don't see it.

EDIT: I suppose one could conjure up some ad-hoc explanation: the little kid might be a Philosophical Zombie; this might all be part of some larger plan which we don't understand; etc. Regardless, I can't force myself to believe ad-hoc claims at face value without evidence.

The kid’s a sinner and deserves worse than death — eternal mindwarping torture, in fact. So does everyone else — babies, kids, saints, your neighbor Mike. That’s why you have to be eternally grateful and submissive to God for allowing a privileged few to escape this fate they so richly deserve.

Calvinism’s a hell of a trip, but that’d be your justification for the kid dying. Ain’t it beautiful in its elegance?

[Not A Communist Shill]

Not really. There's this thing people forget about "God" (at least if we're talking about the Deity of Christianity). God *is* love. He loves you, me, that gray alien on Epsilon Segmentum Obscurus, etc. The key thing everyone just keeps overlooking is that he is also Justice.

Take the true and eternal love out of that equation. Imagine an entity, a deity, of only pure justice, of pure and omnipotent "law" sans any form of "morality" or "compassion" as we would understand it made manifest. Now imagine asking that thing what you deserve (or rather, not being given a choice in regards to having to ask that question of it). If you're not absolutely terrified at the prospect of that reality than you're either a narcissist, a saint, or a total idiot with a complete lack of imagination to boot and as saints are quite rare that kinda narrows it down.

Thankfully, for Christians like me, God is both so we have nothing to truly fear. Further argument on this front will, I regret in jest, require you to pass the Witch test. Key thing to remember about that is that you need not mean a word you type. Hell, you can even ask me to type words I won't mean for shit (i.e. ask me to say/type out the creed of another religion). Save, of course, for anything that hails the prince of this world and/or rejects God. After all, many a martyr were asked to do just that and they gave the correct answer. I will follow in their example.

If "God" is absolutely just, then no one has anything to fear.

[Computer Loser]

Lol. People claim they're all about science and rationality but when actually provided logical explanations they all close their ears/minds and say some variation of "you make your own meaning!" Which is why I can't take anyone asking questions about God seriously anymore.

Ultimately in the end people just choose to believe what feels good to them, even if it means making shit up like "you are god! reality is god!"

lol

[ashlesha]

Lol. People claim they're all about science and rationality but when actually provided logical explanations they all close their ears/minds and say some variation of "you make your own meaning!" Which is why I can't take anyone asking questions about God seriously anymore.

Ultimately in the end people just choose to believe what feels good to them, even if it means making shit up like "you are god! reality is god!"

lol

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.

[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."

 

[Dauphin]

To attempt to consider faith rationally or logically is to miss the mark entirely, as shown by Pascal and Kierkegaard. You can only understand faith by experiencing it. Believers and non-believers exist in entirely separate epistemological categories.

[Computer Loser]

To attempt to consider faith rationally or logically is to miss the mark entirely, as shown by Pascal and Kierkegaard. You can only understand faith by experiencing it. Believers and non-believers exist in entirely separate epistemological categories.

To correct you it’s rationalize God, not faith. Logic and faith are separate, and you can use logic to help strengthen your faith. As Paul once said,

“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have”

To illustrate further,

We need conservatives because sometimes we have to do what worked in the past. We need liberals because sometimes we need to try something new.

Similarly, both faith and logic have its place.

In general, having faith in something completely illogical is retarded.

But what I’m arguing is having faith in God is NOT unreasonable because it actually IS logical if you care enough to seek it.

The problem happens when people don’t even do the research and say it’s illogical or some dumb shit they pull straight from their ass and mislead the masses. It’s like no, you can’t do that in science class and you can’t do that with this either.