<p>“Really, there’s very little point in having a discussion if you’re just going to say that God is not bounded by logic.”</p>
<p>Well I think there is, if only to try to show why people make that leap of faith and believe in God and maybe convince some people as well.</p>
<p>That’s not the point of a philosophical discussion. That’s the point of a mission trip.</p>
<p>Serious discussions serve to find and reinforce truth through the use of logic and rationality; declaring that your view is correct because it is outside the bounds of logic is not conducive to these ends.</p>
<p>
I don’t know the complete details of actual history, but I wasn’t aware any disciples ever really existed.
The two arguments are not equivalent. There is only one true reality, period. Each person may perceive the world differently, but the world is still the same. It isn’t your story vs ours. It’s your fictional book vs the real world, experimented, observed, recorded. It’s the absence of logic vs logic.</p>
<p>Your story is equivalent to any other religion’s story, but it is not comparable to logical, observable reality.</p>
<p>On a side note, I volunteer with kids in a (secular) program that has to meet at a church and was handed an application today for a job at a different church… I laugh on the inside at the thought of me working for a church XD. That said, working from the inside, influencing children to question their beliefs, may be just what needs to be done to fix this crazy mess the world is in.</p>
<p>There must be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not necessarily true – we all start from basic assumptions. Productive discourse seeks to:</p>
<p>1) Establish valid assumptions</p>
<p>2) Establish valid consequences</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In all cases of comparison of mutually exclusive viewpoints, it’s truth v. non-truth. Note that logic is irrelevant – what is, is. You have to establish all illogical things as incorrect before the distinction you drew has meaning.</p>
<p>So now the Christians on here are saying their God is the the real God?
Why not Zeus?</p>
<p>
Sorry, I just don’t think what you said makes sense. I have to disprove an illogical argument before the distinction between logic and the absence of logic has meaning? That is what you said, correct? I have the burden of disproof and NOT that any given argument has the burden of proof?</p>
<p>Religion will never win an argument if its goal is to be mutually exclusive. This is the reason religious people fight for coexistence; there is no other way to be competitive in logical debate.</p>
<p>What you say would be true in the case of two mutually exclusive scientific observations. It does not apply to a fictional story (read: delusion) just because a group decides to have faith and believe in it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, because the argument itself is based on an assumption that you find illogical. That does not mean that the resultant belief system is internally inconsistent or illogical.</p>
<p>If you want to talk about the assumptions, fine. But religion is not illogical if it is internally logical. The basic principle may be – but that’s another issue altogether.</p>
<p>As far as I understand, we are talking about the existence of God, not religion, in this thread. Two different concepts.</p>
<p>@Baelor
You need to be more specific, man. It’s easy to pretend like you’ve said something meaningful when you speak so ambiguously. I probably should have specified “sound” logic, but I suppose most people would assume that. Within the delusional religious framework (aka “given the assumptions”), there may be some kind of sound logic that justifies beliefs, rituals, etc., but it’s irrelevant to the current topic of the existence of a god/the legitimacy of a given religion’s historical account.</p>
<p>“That’s not the point of a philosophical discussion. That’s the point of a mission trip.”</p>
<p>Perhaps more mission trips should be philosophical discussions lol.</p>
<p>"That’s not necessarily true – we all start from basic assumptions. Productive discourse seeks to:</p>
<p>1) Establish valid assumptions</p>
<p>2) Establish valid consequences"</p>
<p>Good point. That’s the base of it. I don’t think arguments can be immediately dismissed simply because they don’t fit into a strictly scientific framework.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That God exists is not a valid assumption when you are arguing for the existence of God. This should be pretty obvious, but just in case it isn’t, circular reasoning bro.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Scientific framework” is probably the wrong wording to use - They most certainly can be dismissed if they don’t hold up to the principles of logic (i.e. non-contradiction, modus tollens, modus tollendo ponens, etc. etc.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not talking about the existence of God – I’m talking about a particular religion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have to agree. I’d like to think humans are smart enough that “Let’s discuss divinity” is more persuasive than “PRAISE THE LORD”.</p>
<p>I am a Christian, but I refuse to argue about it.</p>
<p>Haha “logic.”</p>
<p>The only thing more full of bs than religion.</p>
<p>When someone tells you that they are right because God says so - well, you may not be dealing with a nobel-prize winner.</p>
<p>When someone tells you they are right because they have “sound logic” and you do not have logic, and they’re logic is better than yours - run for the hills, you’ve met a grade A moron.</p>
<p>By the way, Icarus, you are clearly one of the people who couldn’t comprehend that time is simply a man-made label - and doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>I’m not saying AT ALL that time or measurement are subjective. An inch is an inch, in every objective sense, everywhere — a second will always be a second and is always the same duration everywhere and anywhere, period - it is by definition, no perception is required.</p>
<p>Time, simply, is not real at all - despite misguided theories about wormhole time travel and the space-time continuum.</p>
<p>Really, there are two definitions of time - atomic-clock time (that can be slowed down - what a poor measurement) and the one I’m talking about - true time - that this universe is a movie, and the timer keeps ticking forward no matter what wormholes and speed-of-light tricks you use (which really only slows down movement and aging, not time). Even if you were to reverse the movement of particles to return to a state where the universe looks exactly as it did in 1985 - well, that took time and it’s really 2010 AD or whatever with the universe looking similar to something else.</p>
<p>There is no such thing as time, in reality. It is a useful construct. Midnight did not exist before the creation of a clock. All that existed was a lack of light particles in a particular area.</p>
<p>We are basically living in one on-going day, with night and day cycles in it – imagine we are living in just one hour - that never ends. Because, really, we are. There is just one moment - now.</p>
<p>The universe - everything in the universe - is just particles and atoms whizzing around, a bunch of shlt moving around, if you will. That’s are universe for you - globs of poo moving around in chaotic fashion.</p>
<p>
Oh, wise one, please explain yourself. I suppose you don’t believe in logical fallacies, either… I have a feeling your ideas are not your own. Are you a spider man or a parrot? ;)</p>
<p>Actually time is not the same everywhere and anywhere. Look up Einsteins general theory of relativity and the twins paradox. In fact, if an astronaut went on a year long space journey, it’s possible it’s 10 years into the future on Earth or something like that.
[Time</a> dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Time dilation - Wikipedia”>Time dilation - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>question of the day in my philosophy class:</p>
<p>would the world be better, worse, or the same with ZERO religion in it?</p>
<p>GO ;}</p>