Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As far as I can tell, faith and logic are mutually exclusive. Logic is basically about mathematical reasoning, 'either this leads to that or it doesn't' type of thing. Well I see all the arguments for there being a god (e.g. intelligent design, etc.) as not being logical. The idea that you can't fathom something happening without an intelligence behind it does not automatically lead to the conclusion that there has to be an intelligence. This conclusion ignores other possibilities, and has no way of being proven through testing (which makes it an unscientific conclusion also).
Also, when fundamentalists of any sort are faced with evidence against one's specific dogma, they generally do everything they can to defend her faith, fighting scientifically proven principles with speculation and logically fallacious statements.
Do you think they are mutually exclusive? Why or why not?
Yes, they are mutually exclusive, faith is the complete abandonment of logic and common sense. Faith is a belief in something that has no proof, but saying it is true anyway. Logic, on the otherhand is a way to form beliefs through critical thinking and demonstrative evidence.
I think that they can coincide, as long as they don't mingle. I think one can have faith, and also be a very logical and rational person. But i dont think that one can logically understand faith, or faithfully understand logic.
I think that they can coincide, as long as they don't mingle. I think one can have faith, and also be a very logical and rational person. But i dont think that one can logically understand faith, or faithfully understand logic.
I once read an article that looked at the "reaction" of DNA to "emotional" responses.
They had identical samples of DNA and subjected one sample to sounds and other stimuli and the remote sample reacted consistently even when they moved them 50 miles apart.
This may go a ways to explain the "spiritual" experiences some "feel" when in groups like anointing etc.
There was also a video of Atheist instant conversion on YourTube (removed) that showed a guy using similar " hypnotic suggestive" nuances and he managed to convince 50% of them that God was real (he being an atheist himself)
There is still one vid response, but sadly the two main ones are gone.
The tests on the DNA went to suggest the ability some have (unknowingly) to influence other people - this phenomena is not yet fully understood. As with most faith claims, empirical evidence is usually lacking thus folk believe what they are told, based on faith or "parallel" experiences.
None of this proves or disproves God but gives plausible alternate explanations.
Well I see all the arguments for there being a god (e.g. intelligent design, etc.) as not being logical. The idea that you can't fathom something happening without an intelligence behind it does not automatically lead to the conclusion that there has to be an intelligence. This conclusion ignores other possibilities, and has no way of being proven through testing (which makes it an unscientific conclusion also).
Just curious. Could you logically show me how a lack of intelligence could produce intelligence?
As far as I can tell, faith and logic are mutually exclusive. Logic is basically about mathematical reasoning, 'either this leads to that or it doesn't' type of thing. Well I see all the arguments for there being a god (e.g. intelligent design, etc.) as not being logical. The idea that you can't fathom something happening without an intelligence behind it does not automatically lead to the conclusion that there has to be an intelligence. This conclusion ignores other possibilities, and has no way of being proven through testing (which makes it an unscientific conclusion also).
Also, when fundamentalists of any sort are faced with evidence against one's specific dogma, they generally do everything they can to defend her faith, fighting scientifically proven principles with speculation and logically fallacious statements.
If logic truly is your friend, you would realize that there really are 2 options. It was either created, or it wasn't.
Which one is there more evidence for? Since we know that the rule of cause and effect states that for the universe to exist, it had to have been caused, the idea that it WASN'T created just isn't logical.
The only logical conclusion would be to conclude that this universe had a creator.
Just curious. Could you logically show me how a lack of intelligence could produce intelligence?
Theory of evolution, anyone? If being slightly more intelligent gives an individual a better chance of survival/reproduction then, over time, intelligence will spread through the whole specie. Add a few billion years, and you get human-level intelligence.
(of course, most species get along fine without intelligence - spending all this energy to grow, protect and use a brain may not be a good strategy for everyone)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
If logic truly is your friend, you would realize that there really are 2 options. It was either created, or it wasn't.
Which one is there more evidence for? Since we know that the rule of cause and effect states that for the universe to exist, it had to have been caused, the idea that it WASN'T created just isn't logical.
Agree with the first paragraph, disagree with the second. An universe that "has always existed" makes sense to me. So does an universe that had a "starting point", a t=0, but with no cause because there was no time before the t=0.
Theory of evolution, anyone? If being slightly more intelligent gives an individual a better chance of survival/reproduction then, over time, intelligence will spread through the whole specie. Add a few billion years, and you get human-level intelligence.
(of course, most species get along fine without intelligence - spending all this energy to grow, protect and use a brain may not be a good strategy for everyone)
Sorry . . . no simplistic skipping past the essential question that is ignored by evolution theory. Your premise of . . . "If being slightly intelligent". . . assumes the answer in your little sequence purporting to explain its appearance AT ALL in a chaotic and random universe.
If logic truly is your friend, you would realize that there really are 2 options. It was either created, or it wasn't.
Which one is there more evidence for? Since we know that the rule of cause and effect states that for the universe to exist, it had to have been caused, the idea that it WASN'T created just isn't logical.
The only logical conclusion would be to conclude that this universe had a creator.
The usual flaw in this argument is that it causes a form of infinite regression because it begs the question of 'what caused god.' It's illogical to say that the cause of the universe is god but god is conveniently exempt from having a cause. It is purely speculative to say that god caused the universe because there is no evidence for such an entity. What happened before the beginning is unknown so it is just as likely that the prime mover of the universe was the universe itself. Saying that the universe was caused by god when there is no evidence for god merely falls into the God of the Gaps argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
