Excellent, because this can be further dissected in fun and creative ways. Logic is indeed a sort of language, but all languages operate by a series of rules and structure. Likewise, logic also exists within set rules and parameters. Now there is more argumentative logic, but there is also what is perceived as the natural logic of the universe, or the logical integrity of properties of the universe. But the difference between the two is observation and the burden of proof. Logic is tool for proof, whereas theists assert that God merely is, which is hardly a logical proof.Originally Posted by anndelise
God exists as concept whose rules are in a constant state of flux as people seek to redefine God around their changing logical perceptions and whose nature has been in debate. Read many of the most influential theologians in history and you will see their underlying problem with which they are faced. They are trying to fit the concept of God within the realm of logic, and they are not trying to fit the concept of logic within the realm of God. This is why the burden of proof will always be on theists to prove in the existence of God.
(And please for the love of theism, stop using "him" as a pronoun to describe both God and humankind. If you are going to be a theist, at least be a good one.)
Logic is not the "Ultimate Truth"; "the Light"; or "the Way"; logic is a tool, but then again so is God. :wink: For theists, God exists as the Ultimate Truth, so there is no need to pursue the subject further than that. Logic is a measurement of structural and factual integrity which is used to discover the Ultimate Truth and to which even God's existence itself (or lack thereof) is subject to scrutiny.logic is often treated as "the Ultimate Truth"; "the Light"; and "the Way"
God is often called "the Ultimate Truth"; "the Light" and "the Way"
Yes, but one explanation is substantially more meaningful than the other in the well-being in the long-term of humanity. A theist can stop merely at "God created the universe," but the scientist (not saying that scientists and theists are mutually exclusive) must always go farther with the explanation because there is always more to learn. Besides, logic is not often used "to explain the underlying structure of all creation," but science is. Logic is merely the tool or measurement by which science must pass. And God also must pass the test of logic. Even for believers, they have to find reason to believe in God, but that does not mean that their belief is entirely rational. Would you not also agree that God must be logically coherent? Why do you think that the problem of evil, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence have posed themselves as inherent problems to philosophers and theologians alike? How can God exist as expressed by A, if by being A God would contradict the principle of B and C?God is used to explain the underlying structure of all of creation
Logic is used to explain the underlying structure of all of creation
Actually, I would say that it would be more like:Promoters of God say that God represents Ultimate Good, and logic represents Ultimate Evil
Promoters of Logic say that Logic represents Ultimate Good, and god represents Ultimate Evil
- Promoters of God say that God represents Ultimate Good, and logic (of the universe and within the holy texts, etc.) will naturally point in the necessary existence of God. "Evil" is merely that which acts in opposition to the obtaining of salvation in a given religion: materiality, sin, etc.
- Promoters of Logic say that Logic represents a neutral or approach or tool which helps discern the structural integrity of concepts, knowledge, and rationality and God represents an irrational and logically incoherent concept with no observable evidence for support. Therefore, God is not evil in anymore than a concept can be "evil," but that the adherents of the beliefs of God are in fact superstitiously irrational.
Science is not an archetype; it's a subject matter. But excluding this logical fallacy, I will play your game.and regarding archetypes:
"God" is an archetype for various concepts and activities
"gods and goddesses" are archetypes for various concepts and activities
"science" is an archetype for various concepts and activities
personality types are archetypes for various concepts and activities
- "gods and goddesses" are archetypes for various concepts and activities ascribed to unobservable supernatural characters.
- "personality types" are archetypes for various concepts and activities ascribed to observable human characters.
Where are my scientific rules of worship then? I did not know I had to pray in the direction of the Galapagos Islands five times a day. Worship itself exists as more than mere belief in the correctness of a concept as any good theist will tell you.whether or not someone personifies the archetypes is perhaps the only difference between worshipers of a diety vs worshipers of a concept but it doesn't change that they are both worshipers
Of course they are in competition, because theism is an outdated concept which is completely illogical and irrational, and coming apart at the seams.nor does it change that each group has it's "knights"
nor does it change that they are in competition
The problem with your argument is that you are attempting to change the nature of logic and science such that it exists with the same problems and goals as religion, when in fact they do not. For example, you say that God is the Ultimate Truth, and then you try and argue that scientists view logic the same way as if that would make both equally acceptable paths.