Christianity Illogical?

[Sideline]

I’m not really sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that the details of Christianity are just too bizarre to be believable, at least for a lot of people?

Yes, I am saying that.

But I am also saying that the very idea of God is meaningless. God is so amorphous as to be indistinguishable from nothing at all.

I’m saying that people can’t even describe what it is that they think God is, but they are convinced that God must exist.

How can Christianity be logical, when no one even has a clear definition of what God is?

 

[buffalo]

Not sure if you just wanted to preach to the choir here.

By Christian logic, the universe is only accounted for by imagining something that cannot be accounted for. I’ve always thought that to be contradictory, and therefore, I suppose, illogical.

Logic is not provable, but atheists have faith in it.

 

[mlchance]

A failure to note differences between illogical, paradoxical, and implausible seems to cause no end of confusion.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[buffalo]

Now we can say atheism is irrational.

 

[crowonsnow]

How can Christianity be logical, when no one even has a clear definition of what God is?

What presently works for me is to understand “god” as quantifiable human behavior, and not an actual thing or things that exist. “God” just becomes something humans do, a superstition. That’s all the definition the word really needs.

Neurologically we’ll probably be able to better define it one day, as a brain state perhaps, maybe with certain brain areas highly engaged or with certain levels of neurotransmitters present. Such a test would be very interesting for me because when someone says, “I believe in god,” I don’t know whether that person is acting, miming, being loyal, or genuinely experiencing something real. So I just observe that it’s a behavior, and a harmless one at that.

For the vast majority of people however, it appears that doing “god” is somehow restorative and healthy. I’ve never felt it was for me, but such a widespread behavior with so many behavioral variations has certainly piqued my curiosity. So it’s obviously a behavior that is and has been culturally selected for, and that isn’t likely to go away anytime soon.

 

[Hastrman]

You are one of those people who think that you can’t split infinitves in English because you can’t split them in Lating aren’t you?

No, I’m one of those people who doesn’t pretend that English is Lojban–of which you have never heard. You’re the one being a prescriptivist by saying that “God is” is not a proper English sentence.

I am a pure descriptivist in grammar, actually, and that is why I say you can use the verb “to be” in English the way you can use it in Latin, Greek, or Sanskrit (or for that matter, Hebrew, Sumerian, and Japanese–and I think also Old Norse). English does not, like French or Spanish, have many verbs that have to be used transitively, and become reflexive where a Germanic language would simply use them intransitively. Or rather, in the case of “to be” (which is a copula), it is a verb that is intransitive but usually predicating, but which can be used non-predicatingly in order to form the existential expletive–although in most modern Western European languages it is more typical (you jackbooted prescriptivists would say “proper”) to use an expression of location: “There is,” in English; “It has there” in French and Spanish (il y a, hay–which was originally ha y).

Thus, one can say, “God is” or “I am” and mean, “God (or I) exist, partake of being, etc.” One is, as I said, using “to be” as the existential expletive rather than the copula.

 

[Hastrman]

How can Christianity be logical, when no one even has a clear definition of what God is?

For the same reason Kremlinology is logical, when nobody even has a clear definition of what Putin is.

A definition is impossible when one is dealing with individuals. The word you’re looking for is description, not definition. And that, we do indeed have: subsistent act of Being.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Right, I constantly hear atheists claim that Christianity “illogical”

why are you putting the blame squarely on the athiests? practically every non-christian group is saying this.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

why are you putting the blame squarely on the athiests? practically every non-christian group is saying this.

“I constantly see Muslims refusing to eat pork”

'Hey! Jews don’t eat pork, why are you putting the blame solely on Muslims!"

I hear many other people besides atheists say Christianity is false because X, however generally I hear atheists claim it’s illogical, it wasen’t intended to be a strictly defined and vetted definition of who has ever said Christianity, it was an observation based on my personal experience.

Nothing More!>.>

 

[Sideline]

No, I’m one of those people who doesn’t pretend that English is Lojban–of which you have never heard. You’re the one being a prescriptivist by saying that “God is” is not a proper English sentence.

Here is some advice. Take it or not, I don’t care.

You would probably find your life far more fulfilling if you actually ***did ***something with it rather than trying to make up for your lack of achievement by being arrogant and snide.

I’ve worked with scientists, theologians, heads of state, professors, doctors, judges, authors, Mensans, and countless others who have actually made contributions to the intellectual framework of our society, and none of them tried to make themselves look smart with the same artless fervor that you employ in every post.

If you want me to acknowlege your posts from now on, try writing like someone who has good ideas, as opposed to someone who wants other people to think they do.

 

[kepha1]

Tiny little atoms that were always there got together and formed a complex universe, and ultimately life itself.

The atom god did this all by their little 'ole selves.

All hail the mighty omnipotent atoms!!! :hypno:

 

[Sideline]

What presently works for me is to understand “god” as quantifiable human behavior, and not an actual thing or things that exist. “God” just becomes something humans do, a superstition. That’s all the definition the word really needs.

Neurologically we’ll probably be able to better define it one day, as a brain state perhaps, maybe with certain brain areas highly engaged or with certain levels of neurotransmitters present. Such a test would be very interesting for me because when someone says, “I believe in god,” I don’t know whether that person is acting, miming, being loyal, or genuinely experiencing something real. So I just observe that it’s a behavior, and a harmless one at that.

For the vast majority of people however, it appears that doing “god” is somehow restorative and healthy. I’ve never felt it was for me, but such a widespread behavior with so many behavioral variations has certainly piqued my curiosity. So it’s obviously a behavior that is and has been culturally selected for, and that isn’t likely to go away anytime soon.

God as a behaviour.
Very interesting way of looking at it.

 

[utunumsint]

What presently works for me is to understand “god” as quantifiable human behavior, and not an actual thing or things that exist. “God” just becomes something humans do, a superstition. That’s all the definition the word really needs.

Neurologically we’ll probably be able to better define it one day, as a brain state perhaps, maybe with certain brain areas highly engaged or with certain levels of neurotransmitters present. Such a test would be very interesting for me because when someone says, “I believe in god,” I don’t know whether that person is acting, miming, being loyal, or genuinely experiencing something real. So I just observe that it’s a behavior, and a harmless one at that.

That human beings have an inborn need for God is something that Christianity agrees with. I would call this the subjective experience of religions that all cultures and human races share. However, to reduce all religion to subjective and biologically conditioned responses is not facing the issues brought up by these religions, but a way of classifying behaviours like a biologist would.

This is a form of biological reductionism. All sciences have a tendency to explain all other sciences based on their criteria, but this is not a very helpful attitude. Perhaps it simply reflects a biological need to explain everything according to familiar criteria.

For the vast majority of people however, it appears that doing “god” is somehow restorative and healthy. I’ve never felt it was for me, but such a widespread behavior with so many behavioral variations has certainly piqued my curiosity. So it’s obviously a behavior that is and has been culturally selected for, and that isn’t likely to go away anytime soon.

Agreed. But was there a guiding hand behind that selection. Once again, it sidesteps the question as to the existence of God and the logical explanations provided by Christian and non Christian philosophy and theology.

God bless,
Ut

 

[mschrank]

Two things come to mind:

a) It is not empiricist- it goes beyond sense impressions and matter
b) It is not rationalist- it goes beyond pure reason

So it kind of alienates both sorts of atheist.

 

[crowonsnow]

But was there a guiding hand behind that selection. Once again, it sidesteps the question as to the existence of God and the logical explanations provided by Christian and non Christian philosophy and theology.

Thanks for the response.

My main point in this thread is that Christianity is contradictory in how it explains the universe. It basically rests on the assertion that the only way to explain the universe is to imagine an unexplainable and unnatural explanation, and that we should all worship that, whatever it is. I guess that’s what you mean by a guiding hand. The point obviously is that if this guiding hand isn’t explainable either, you haven’t explained anything.

 

[crowonsnow]

Two things come to mind:

a) It is not empiricist- it goes beyond sense impressions and matter
b) It is not rationalist- it goes beyond pure reason

So it kind of alienates both sorts of atheist.

I don’t think an explanation that does not explain anything goes beyond reason or sense or impression. I’d just call that a poor or inadequate explanation.

 

[mschrank]

I don’t think an explanation that does not explain anything goes beyond reason or sense or impression. I’d just call that a poor or inadequate explanation.

Actually, St. Thomas Aquinas said that (yes, it always goes back to Aquinas) nature was naturally explainable and because it could be explained, we should believe in God.

Weird eh?

I don’t really have a problem with you, or anyone else, not believing, but please do us the honor in not believing in what we believe, not disbelieving in what we do not believe.

The God of the Gaps argument was invented by Protestants in the 18th century.

 

[Hastrman]

…please do us the honor in not believing in what we believe, not disbelieving in what we do not believe.

Hear hear!

But then, that might require that they actually find out what we believe, rather than using illiterate caricatures of what we believe.

I admit, I frequently do the same thing–nothing in the universe could compel me to read Descartes; I read criticisms of Descartes, which leads me to notice only his weaknesses–but they could at least read some of the modern Scholastics. Here’s a hint, though: the Aristotelian Metaphysics are not based on the Physics. They’re called the metaphysics because…they came after the physics on the shelf. That’s it.

 

[crowonsnow]

Actually, St. Thomas Aquinas said that (yes, it always goes back to Aquinas) nature was naturally explainable and because it could be explained, we should believe in God.

Weird eh?

More like a logical train wreck.

So we should believe in a god? Remember that this god has no explanation.

So unless you’ve misrepresented Aquinas, Aquinas is saying that if something can be explained, we should now believe in something that can’t be explained.

I don’t see any value there.

 

[crowonsnow]

But then, that might require that they actually find out what we believe, rather than using illiterate caricatures of what we believe.

It’s obvious that you believe the universe is real. And unless you are fundamentally different than all mainstream creationist believers, you also believe that the universe shouldn’t be.

So you have this conflict wherein a universe that you recognize is real, you also believe shouldn’t be real.

The solution you apply is god belief, where god belief is something that you have decided doesn’t require the same scrutiny as you previously applied to the universe. If this god belief did require the same scrutiny, you would reject it

So I’m fundamentally different than you in this regard. I’m different because I accept that the universe is real, same as you, but unlike yourself I have no bias against it being so.

The reason I don’t share your bias against the universe being real is because I have never made any observations that would lead me to believe that the universe should not be. Apparently you have made such observations, and I would love to discuss those with you if you are ever so inclined.

If in fact you have never made any observations that lead you to believe the universe should not be real, but nonetheless still hold that it indeed shouldn’t be, I am curious as to how and why you have come to this philosophical position, and would enjoy a discussion along those lines.