Originally posted by lucifershammerPeople that says that existence of God, intelligent design, miracles of Jesus, and such, is logic has to have a totally different definition of what logic is as the pure mathematical definition.
And your view is just plain wrong.
Okay, answer this -- do you hold that the same applies to physics; i.e., "the laws of logic don't apply to physics" and "Physics cannot be stated in logical terms"?
I don't think I have stated anything about the relationship between logic and physics so I leave it with that. If I have, please, show me what I have written, preferable with a quotation.
Originally posted by FabianFnasYour argument for religion works just as well for physics (hint: that's how logic actually works) -- so if you hold that the laws of logic don't apply to religion on the basis that logic and religion are not the same; then the same applies to physics.
People that says that existence of God, intelligent design, miracles of Jesus, and such, is logic has to have a totally different definition of what logic is as the pure mathematical definition.
I don't think I have stated anything about the relationship between logic and physics so I leave it with that. If I have, please, show me what I have written, preferable with a quotation.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThis is your view, not mine. Your'e entitled to you view, me to mine.
Your argument for religion works just as well for physics (hint: that's how logic actually works) -- so if you hold that the laws of logic don't apply to religion on the basis that logic and religion are not the same; then the same applies to physics.
One example:
Some religious (the Christians) says that "Jesus is son of God". Let's call this statement as X.
Some religious (the Muslims) says that "Jesus is not son of God", Let's call this statement as Y.
Clearly X is not the same as Y, in fact X = ~Y and Y= ~X.
Now - how can religion say that X is true at the same time as Y is true? This is not Logic, this is religion.
Can you give the same kind of example about physics?
Originally posted by FabianFnasOk sorry i just needed your definition of logic. I assumed too much in the beginning. okeydokey?
No they don't.
Are we talking of the mathematical branch called Logic?
If so, then religion is certainly not Logic, not at all.
Let's take Intelligent design as an example:
If you can write this in logical terms in a way that a mathematician can understand, then I'm prepared to agree with you. But it is certainly not possible.
Give it a try if ...[text shortened]... e done.
Until then my thesis that “Religion can not be described in Logical terms” stands.
apology accepted? (again...)
Originally posted by FabianFnasSure.
This is your view, not mine. Your'e entitled to you view, me to mine.
One example:
Some religious (the Christians) says that "Jesus is son of God". Let's call this statement as X.
Some religious (the Muslims) says that "Jesus is not son of God", Let's call this statement as Y.
Clearly X is not the same as Y, in fact X = ~Y and Y= ~X.
Now - how can ...[text shortened]... s is not Logic, this is religion.
Can you give the same kind of example about physics?
There are currently multiple mutually exclusive theories on the ultimate fate of the physical universe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#Theories_about_the_end_of_universe
The point is not whether two religions have contradictory propositions; but whether they are internally consistent or coherent.
Originally posted by liteswordatlitespeedThe everyman's definition of Logic is just 'understandable', avey vague definition. Therefor, Intelligent Desight, might be for som people logical, but if one plunge into the stictness of Logic (of which all mathematics is based apon) then religion just can't be any kind of Logic. You cant treat religion scientifically if you want to still beleive in its values, it's impossible.
Ok sorry i just needed your definition of logic. I assumed too much in the beginning. okeydokey?
apology accepted? (again...)
You don't have to apologize, you have every right to have your own opinion. Even if it differs from mine an all others.
Originally posted by lucifershammerPhysical theories cannot be considered being The Truth, but the best way to describe physical phenomenon known based on observations.
Sure.
There are currently multiple mutually exclusive theories on the ultimate fate of the physical universe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#Theories_about_the_end_of_universe
The point is not whether two religions have contradictory propositions; but whether they are internally consistent or coherent.
Who do you think can describe the Universe most correctly, the Bible or the Science?
Are we talking of Religion as whole or only the Monitheistic religions? And then of course Christian religion? Chatolic or Lutheran branch? Perhaps only Baptistic part of the Lutheran religion, and in that case the hometown church? But then we cannot talk of the old folks there, nor the young innocent ones. Perhaps we can only talk of those having the right religion? Then we have me and my wife left, and she is a woman so she has nothing to say about the matter. So yes, Religion is the same and therefore logic. Mine that is. 😉
This is a joke. But still, are we talking of Religion or a certain religion? I speak religion as a whole. Do you only speak of religion of what you can believe in?
2 edits
Originally posted by liteswordatlitespeedI didn't bring up Logic, no no, not me.
Yes but the problem is we have no base for an argument if we all have a different definition of logic.
(especially you and l's hammer over there.)
Lucifershammer did by writing:
"I am still not sure what you mean by "no religion has monopoly on The Truth". If religion A says that X is true about God, and religion B says that ~X is true about God -- then one and only one of them can be correct (given that God exists). On this matter, religion A (and other religions that agree with it) would indeed have a "monopoly on The Truth"."
And later:
“And there can be also a third alternative: Neither X nor ~X might be The Truth.
No, there can't be. Logically one and only one of X or ~X can and will be true.”
So if LH used Logic in the mathematical way, then I just have to say that religion can’t be about logic by LH’s definition.
Let him prove Logically that religion is logical.
Originally posted by whodeySorry I may don't understand but which of these scripts did Juses say that he is GOD. Just tell me which one you mean
1 Timothy 3:16
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached to the nations, believed on in the world, received up into glory"
John 20:28
"And Thomas answered, and said to him, My Lord and my God."
John 5:18
"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him ...[text shortened]... om the Old Testament, from the very words of Jesus himself, and from Pauline letters.
Originally posted by FabianFnasIt is theoretically possible for a religion to be internally consistent and logical. However this does not make it "true" nor does it guarantee that it is reflected by reality.
Let him prove Logically that religion is logical.
In my experience the only way most major religions can claim to be internally consistent is by leaving 99% of thier content as flixible/optional.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is, of course, easy to construct a religion to be internally consistent and logical and then define it as a religion, but that is somewhat like cheating.
It is theoretically possible for a religion to be internally consistent and logical. However this does not make it "true" nor does it guarantee that it is reflected by reality.
In my experience the only way most major religions can claim to be internally consistent is by leaving 99% of thier content as flixible/optional.
It is also easy to pick out a small detail of an existing religion that is internally consistent and logical, but than we have to break down a certain religion as being partwise logical and partwise not. However it is also like cheating.
Do we talk about a specific religion or religions in general? I try to concentrate of religions as a whole. And then I say that religions are not logical.
Any one who want to disprove this, please, give me logical proof of the existence of God.
Originally posted by FabianFnasFirst you say that religion does not equal logic; therefore the laws of logic do not apply to religion.
Physical theories cannot be considered being The Truth, but the best way to describe physical phenomenon known based on observations.
Who do you think can describe the Universe most correctly, the Bible or the Science?
Are we talking of Religion as whole or only the Monitheistic religions? And then of course Christian religion? Chatolic or Lutheran br ...[text shortened]... religion? I speak religion as a whole. Do you only speak of religion of what you can believe in?
When I point out that this can equally apply to physics, you change track and argue that since different religions have contradictory theses, therefore the laws of logic do not apply to religion.
When I point that this can still equally apply to physics, you change track again and speak of ... well, quite honestly I can't tell what your point was in that post.
Laws or rules of logic apply to any system of propositions.
Originally posted by FabianFnasOn this basis, can you tell of anything other than mathematics that would be logical?
I try to concentrate of religions as a whole. And then I say that religions are not logical.
Any one who want to disprove this, please, give me logical proof of the existence of God.
No, it's just easier to disprove it by showing that your argument is irrational/unreasonable.