Logic Restriction

[maverixk]

     I've seen many people who are arguing against religion and God and such use the argument that religion forces you to abandon logic. They say that believing in God or a god is simply throwing logic to the wind. However, I would like to challenge that, at least in the case of Christianity, and I might be able to for Judaism as well. In those faiths one is told to believe in God and to love him. Sure, I don't have any physical evidence right now that God exists, however people are told to believe in God because of what he has done (or supposedly done). And some people have witnessed things that would be explained only as God's doing.

     So, yes people are taught to use faith and to believe, but they are told to believe something because of past evidence. Is that not what science is based off of? Evidence?
     Right now you might not have evidence of God, but some people do, so their 'leap of faith' isn't really much of a leap because it's based on evidence. Just thought I'd try to get rid of that argument.

[tyranim]

i understand what you're trying to say, but just because it can't be explained by science YET, doesn't mean its godly. i was strangled by my mother's umbilical cord when i was in the womb and i technically died. she was in the c section at the time (due to pains from me) and the doctors got me out and revived me just in time, yet i don't think of that as a godly event, just lucky. when a dog rescues a family from a building on fire, some people claim its a miracle from god, when its actually what just about anyone else would do were they in the dog's position (underestimating the intelligence of animals is a huge mistake, some are smarter than even us).

[Chromatophore]

I'm not trying to say religion is illogical, but i think its fair to say that the existence of God is not verifiable (at least right now) by the scientific method.

With scientific theories, you have evidence that they are right because you can design an experiment and predict the outcome.  If your theory is correct, your prediciton will be correct.  Thus if your prediction turns out to be correct, that is some evidence that your theory might be correct.  Enough correct predictions and you gain confidence in your theory.

With God its not really possible to design an experiment.  Because God is unfathomable and people don't even agree on what God would be.  I guess if you pray to God 100 times and your prayers are answered in a clear quick manner each time, that would work, but someone else will come along and ask why their prayers weren't answered.

[Belthus]

Sure, I don't have any physical evidence right now that God exists, however people are told to believe in God because of what he has done (or supposedly done). And some people have witnessed things that would be explained only as God's doing.

     So, yes people are taught to use faith and to believe, but they are told to believe something because of past evidence. Is that not what science is based off of? Evidence?
     Right now you might not have evidence of God, but some people do, so their 'leap of faith' isn't really much of a leap because it's based on evidence. Just thought I'd try to get rid of that argument.

Let's take one story from the Bible. In one battle, Joshua asked God to stop the sun and the moon so that the Israelites could finish slaughtering their enemies in daylight. According to the story, God granted the request. Let's put aside the fact that the apparent movement of the sun in the sky is the result of the Earth's rotation, and stopping the Earth's rotation would have been like slamming on the brakes in a very fast car without a seat belt, hurtling everything on the planet's surface into space. An event of this magnitude would have been witnessed all around the world. Given the lack of any corroborating reports from the rest of the world, the story is a mythical embellishment at best. Maybe the day seemed really long, and sometimes our sense of time is distorted when we are busy. Of course, such explanations are ordinary and require no Godly intervention.

Is your belief really based on evidence, or is it based on your hopes and dreams?

[Astrocyte]

Right now you might not have evidence of God, but some people do, so their 'leap of faith' isn't really much of a leap because it's based on evidence.

I have evidence that the teapot orbiting Mars is real. You don't have it, but I do. So that's proof. Obviously.

[maverixk]

I have evidence that the teapot orbiting Mars is real. You don't have it, but I do. So that's proof. Obviously.

Obviously.

[Bloodshadow]

And some people have witnessed things that would be explained only as God's doing.

Ah. But I happen to disagree with the bold red part. If God can be explained by science, then he is no longer a being of religion. If you can convince me of God's existence, then I will believe in God. But I will never believe in religion; only science.

If someone sees something that blatantly defies the current model of physics, he might think "a wizard God did it". But I never will think such a thing. I'll keep trying to find a scientific explanation.

[Wimbledofy]

And some people have witnessed things that would be explained only as God's doing.

Ah. But I happen to disagree with the bold red part. If God can be explained by science, then he is no longer a being of religion. If you can convince me of God's existence, then I will believe in God. But I will never believe in religion; only science.

If someone sees something that blatantly defies the current model of physics, he might think "a wizard God did it". But I never will think such a thing. I'll keep trying to find a scientific explanation.

Does that mean science is a religion too and that you shouldn't believe it because science can't even prove science? Meaning, you can't prove the scientific method with science, we just assume it to be true. And assuming science to be true, that is a proven fact.

And God is very logical, any christian that denies that the God of the bible is logical is or can break the laws of logic, they are basically denying God himself. God cannot break the laws of logic because those laws are part of his nature. The reason i say that the christian would be denying God, because if he could brake those laws, how could we even know he exists and why would we even have those laws in the first place.

[maverixk]

I don't really feel like reviving this thread too much, but I thought I'd put in this little bit from dictionary.com
re·li·gion:
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

By that definition, science is a religion.

[Bloodshadow]

Does that mean science is a religion too and that you shouldn't believe it because science can't even prove science? Meaning, you can't prove the scientific method with science, we just assume it to be true. And assuming science to be true, that is a proven fact.

How do you "prove" the scientific method? The scientific method is a process, not a belief. Comparing the scientific method to religion is like comparing a verb to a noun. Your argument makes no sense.

[Wimbledofy]

Does that mean science is a religion too and that you shouldn't believe it because science can't even prove science? Meaning, you can't prove the scientific method with science, we just assume it to be true. And assuming science to be true, that is a proven fact.

How do you "prove" the scientific method? The scientific method is a process, not a belief. Comparing the scientific method to religion is like comparing a verb to a noun. Your argument makes no sense.

It can't be proven, thats what i was trying to say.

[russianspy1234]

you dont have to fully abandon logic, but to be an intelligent person who believes in god, one has to believe that certain things can be above logic, because saying that god is logical is a limitation on omnipotence.