Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution?

[emmy27sf]

so why do u believe in evolution or creationism???

[chrispalasz]

Quote:
This does not mean that God cannot USE logical reasoning to bring people to Him...

So if God can “choose” to “use” logical reasoning, would you then say that issues of God are over and above logical reasoning (otherwise known as illogical)? If so, I agree with you.

I'm sorry. My answer is yes and no.
Yes: God is above logical reasoning... if He allows Himself to be revealed by such means.
No: I don't see how that equals being illogical. God's ability to do whatever He chooses logically makes sense to me, and so I don't understand how that can be labeled as being illogical.

Quote:
...and it doesn't mean that logical reasoning for His existance does not exist.

So let me get this straight, people aren’t brought to God by logical reasoning, as God isn’t confined by logical reasoning (ie - illogical)

Well, I think you typed this with enough clarity, so I'm going to have to correct the wording. Yes: People ARE brought to God by logical reasoning... but only when He chooses to use those means.
No: Logical reasoning does not bring anyone to God.

Does that make sense? It's like: The taxi does not drive you to work, the taxi driver uses the taxi to drive you to work. The taxi is an instrument. Logic is also an instrument of God's.

But no, God is not confined to logical reasoning. He has many other "methods" for bringing people to salvation. Logic is only one of them.

but there is still logical reasoning that suggest her existence?

Greenlight, I just want clarification on your stance, do you think belief in God is logical and can easily be shown by objective scientific evidence? Or is God over and above our petty rational thought?

I'm sorry, because again, I'm going to have to have it both ways.
1. I believe that God is logical and can easily be shown by objective scientific evidence.
2.I also believe that God is over and above our petty rational thought.

Here's my explanation as to why holding these two beliefs is possible and not illogical. Points: God decides who will understand. I don't get to decide. Here's an analogy to clear it up:

Let's say you have the world's greatest mathematician. If he tried to explain an extremely difficult math problem using a bunch of jargon to a farmer with no higher education, would that farmer understand? I hope the answer is "no". I'll make this assumption and move on. Now suppose this mathematician explains this difficult math problem to another of the world's greatest mathematicians using a bunch of jargon. This man will probably understand, right? So, the farmer will be in utter confusion, and to him, the explanation will hardly seem logical. He is not likely to understand at all. The 2nd mathematician will likely not be in utter confusion, and the explanation may seem extremely logical. Because the farmer doesn't understand, does that mean the 1st mathematician's explanation is not logical? No.

Now let's make the jump and apply this to God (although hopefully you understand how it works). If God explains His existance to two people, both in a logical manner, one might understand and one might not. That does not mean the explanation is not logical, one person may just not be capable of understanding - or maybe they just don't know enough yet, which can be rectified. The people that understand are Christians.

God is still beyond our petty thoughts because He can always explain Himself in a way that no human will ever understand. Does this mean this explanation is not logical? (Keep in mind, we're talking about God, here.) No. Just because we cannot comprehend God's logic sometimes, does not mean it is not logical.

Also Greenlight, I’d like to ask what your thoughts on rationalization are? How do they differ to “apologetics”?

I don't understand the question. I'm sorry. Does any of what I already said answer this question?

[chrispalasz]

Is a belief in God logical? Let's weigh the options.

If I believe in God and God DOESN'T exist... I lose nothing, except maybe a few decisions I would have made differently.

If I beleive in God and God DOES exist... this can only be a very good thing.

If I don't believe in God and God DOESN'T exist... I lose nothing.

If I don't believe in God and God DOES exist... I'm probably in trouble.


Which is more logical to choose: ++ OR +-

Note: This is not MY reasoning, however, claims are being made all over the place that a belief in God is not logical and anybody that believes in God is not logical. This is my refutation.

[dangerdan]

Now let's make the jump and apply this to God (although hopefully you understand how it works). If God explains His existance to two people, both in a logical manner, one might understand and one might not. That does not mean the explanation is not logical, one person may just not be capable of understanding - or maybe they just don't know enough yet, which can be rectified. The people that understand are Christians.

Assuming that “God explaining his existence in logical terms” is empirical evidence… Does that mean that the reason why so many scientists lean towards evolution, is because they don’t understand the data they are analyzing, at least not as well as a Christian like yourself? Is the scientific community meant to be the ignorant farmer, and the Christian community meant to be the rational mathematician, in your analogy?

…or do you mean “God explaining himself” as in just God talking (possibly with an audible voice) to people?

God is still beyond our petty thoughts because He can always explain Himself in a way that no human will ever understand. Does this mean this explanation is not logical? (Keep in mind, we're talking about God, here.) No. Just because we cannot comprehend God's logic sometimes, does not mean it is not logical.

Interesting. Do you find the reasoning for my supernatural Santa just as compelling?

Santa is still beyond our petty thoughts because He can always explain Himself in a way that no human will ever understand. Does this mean this explanation is not logical? (Keep in mind, we're talking about Santa, here.) No. Just because we cannot comprehend Santa's logic sometimes, does not mean it is not logical.

Remember we are just talking about specific reasoning here used in your argument…

Quote:

Also Greenlight, I’d like to ask what your thoughts on rationalization are? How do they differ to “apologetics”?

I don't understand the question. I'm sorry. Does any of what I already said answer this question?

...interesting...

[bernee51]

This is in response to a post on the Santa thread. I moved it here so it would be more on-topic.

bernee51 wrote:

There is not one single piece of objective evidence to support a belief in god and to my knowledge never has been throughout the entire history of mankind.

A belief in god is therefore illogical. Believers in god must therefore also be deemed illogical.

Not everything that is logical has evidence. Try math. It can be logical and purely conceptional.

I didn't make that statement (AFAIK) - although I tend to agree with it,

Here's some logic, courtesy of St. Augustine. Let me know when we come to a point when you cannot agree, and then please state your reasoning:

1. We exist

What do you mean by 'exist'. We as anything other than matter (atoms & molecules) do not exist with any permanence.

Seriously there are several issues with the 'progression' of the argument. There is assumption of a heirarchy - that one thing is somehow further up some ladder than the previous. This, in some minds, would encourage a belief of something 'above humans'. I don't believe this is an accurate description of the physical world. In terms of atoms and molecules we are in no way different to a rock. Increasing sensitivity to the environment in which these atoms exist does not automatically make an open ended system.

Your final statement..."If it can be proven that there is something greater than human reason, it must be God"... fails on two points.

Firstly, the logic used to determine "a truth greater than human reason" is circular, therefore fallacious. Secondly, it is a false dichotomy. If such a situation was the case, god is not the only answer.

And why is this particular discussion better suited here than where it was originally?

Obfuscation, comes to mind.

[dangerdan]

Is a belief in God logical? Let's weigh the options.

If I believe in God and God DOESN'T exist... I lose nothing, except maybe a few decisions I would have made differently.

If I beleive in God and God DOES exist... this can only be a very good thing.

If I don't believe in God and God DOESN'T exist... I lose nothing.

If I don't believe in God and God DOES exist... I'm probably in trouble.


Which is more logical to choose: ++ OR +-

...Otherwise known as Pascal’s Wager.

If this is a logical approach to something’s existence, let me put it this way….

Is a belief in Allah logical? Let's weigh the options.

If I believe in Allah and Allah DOESN'T exist... I lose nothing, except maybe a few decisions I would have made differently.

If I beleive in Allah and Allah DOES exist... this can only be a very good thing.

If I don't believe in Allah and Allah DOESN'T exist... I lose nothing.

If I don't believe in Allah and Allah DOES exist... I'm probably in trouble.


Which is more logical to choose: ++ OR +-

…So are Greenlight, I hope you are Muslim, otherwise you are being illogical and far too reckless…

[bernee51]

Is a belief in God logical? Let's weigh the options.

If I believe in God and God DOESN'T exist... I lose nothing, except maybe a few decisions I would have made differently.

If I beleive in God and God DOES exist... this can only be a very good thing.

If I don't believe in God and God DOESN'T exist... I lose nothing.

If I don't believe in God and God DOES exist... I'm probably in trouble.


Which is more logical to choose: ++ OR +-

Note: This is not MY reasoning, however, claims are being made all over the place that a belief in God is not logical and anybody that believes in God is not logical. This is my refutation.

Pascal and his wager never did much for me.

I would wager that if I live a moral life that any truly benevolent god would know this - regardless of my belief or not in said entity.

[bernee51]

B) Refuting bernee51:

No you're not - you are attempting to.

Many contemporaries have written mention of Biblical accounts. Take a look at the listing in my last post and take a look at the evidence in Part 2 and 3.

No - all on the list wrote long after the death of your suoosed Christ. Some as much as 200 years. Contemporary means "at the same time as"

BTW the 'massacre of the innocents' was not restricted to Bethelehem.

You are familiar with Matthew 2:16?

As to veracity and consistency - I ask you again...which version of the resurrection do you hold to be true.

I believe in the only version that exists in the Bible is true.

How well do you know the bible...there is more than one version...compare the gospels.

Also, I looked at your link. I've been there. Funny website - a nice attempt, but the claims are false.

Because you say so...or for some other reason?

The analysis looks at the texts you yourself listed and appraises them objectively, something you seem incapable of doing.

If you supply your evidence I am happy to discuss it.

They are contemporary with the time period.

That is like saying that Abraham Lincoln is a contemporary of Dubya.

[bernee51]

B) Refuting bernee51:

No you're not - you are attempting to.

Many contemporaries have written mention of Biblical accounts. Take a look at the listing in my last post and take a look at the evidence in Part 2 and 3.

No - all on the list wrote long after the death of your suoosed Christ. Some as much as 200 years. Contemporary means "at the same time as"

BTW the 'massacre of the innocents' was not restricted to Bethelehem.

You are familiar with Matthew 2:16?

As to veracity and consistency - I ask you again...which version of the resurrection do you hold to be true.

I believe in the only version that exists in the Bible is true.

How well do you know the bible...there is more than one version...compare the gospels.

Also, I looked at your link. I've been there. Funny website - a nice attempt, but the claims are false.

Because you say so...or for some other reason?

The analysis looks at the texts you yourself listed and appraises them objectively, something you seem incapable of doing.

If you supply your evidence I am happy to discuss it.

Saying you will is not the same as doing it.

They are contemporary with the time period.

That is like saying that Abraham Lincoln is a contemporary of Dubya.

[ENIGMA]

Is a belief in God logical? Let's weigh the options.

If I believe in God and God DOESN'T exist... I lose nothing, except maybe a few decisions I would have made differently.

If I beleive in God and God DOES exist... this can only be a very good thing.

If I don't believe in God and God DOESN'T exist... I lose nothing.

If I don't believe in God and God DOES exist... I'm probably in trouble.


Which is more logical to choose: ++ OR +-

Note: This is not MY reasoning, however, claims are being made all over the place that a belief in God is not logical and anybody that believes in God is not logical. This is my refutation.

"This is very similar to the suggestion put forward by the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, 'Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?' When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, 'We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts...'"
-- (Terry Pratchett, Hogfather)

[ENIGMA]

This is in response to a post on the Santa thread. I moved it here so it would be more on-topic.

Here's some logic, courtesy of St. Augustine. Let me know when we come to a point when you cannot agree, and then please state your reasoning:

1. We exist

Agreed.

2. We are alive

Agreed.

3. We understand that we exist and that we are alive

Agreed.

4. A rock exists, this is all it does. It has no concept of life, or even of it’s own existence.

Agreed.

5. A tree exists. It is both alive, and it exists. It does not have understanding, nor does it have mobility.

Uh... care to support the notion that trees lack some form of understanding?

6. A dog exists, lives, and is sensate. It can feel, taste, smell, hear, and touch. It has an understanding of life, and of survival. It has what he calls an inner animal sense. It can chose whether or not to eat a certain item, it can move freely, and respond freely, where as nothing below a dog in the hierarchy can do any of that.

What hierarchy?

7. Humans exist, have life, are sensate, and have one thing that all the others lack, one things that sets us apart from all the others, we have reason. We are capable of understanding, and choosing.

Fair enough...

8. If it can be proven that there is something greater than human reason, it must be God.

BZZT!! Thanks for playing. Have fun with the home version.

I mean this is a complete and total non-sequitor. It simply does not follow from all of the previous premises. It might as well have been "I like cheesy poofs". But, with that in mind, lets continue.

Seven plus three equals ten. This is true, whether or not we exist. It is not ten because we want it to be, because it should be, because it’s supposed to be, because it could be, because it might be, it is because it is.

Not quite, numbers are an abstraction of a certain characteristic of what we perceive. There is no "2" that gets referenced from the etherial plane when I see two cars. Its just that a property of the area that I am looking at is that it contains two cars. Mathematics is simply a more general abstraction that allows one to manipulate the numbers.

One cannot point out a "2" anymore than one could point out an "animal". I mean yes you can point out a frog, a tiger, an elephant, etc. however you cannot point out just an "animal" since "animal" is an abstraction. Likewise with 2.

Also 7+3 is in fact 12 in an octal numeric system.

The rest simply collapses from the removal of the above supports.

Simple reminder of a post that has gone unanswered since the core-dump from the Santa thread to this one....