Is Christianity Illogical?

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I don't understand why you would associate yourself at all with Spock. Ever seen Star Trek V: The Final Frontier? Just curious.

Indeed. He seems to have an extremely superficial (mis)understanding of both logic and socratic questioning (which I find to be far too vulnerable to disingenuous misuse, as we see in this thread). I think if Spock or Socrates could be here, they would both bitch-slap him to death for sullying their good names.

[spockrates]

I suppose you might be correct, but my error is unintentional.

I am not convinced of this. The reason why in 3...2...1..

Please explain how trust in a person is unlike trust in a method.

I already explained that you are concealing the approach to each. Obfuscation isn't going to work for you, either.

---

I'm defining illogical as presenting an argument in which the premises do not support the conclusion.

Precisely what I was talking about.

Did you claim to be familiar with formal logic? You keep using all these terms from formal logic, and yet you do not use the proper term for this?

Familiar? Yes. Efficient? I suppose not. Please explain how I'm falling short.

[Annik]

You're starting with a faulty premise in regards to science. I do recommend the videos posted. They will help you a lot.

[downbeatplumb]

He keeps trying to make the scientific method a faith issue so he can bring it down to his level.

The scientific method is the only reliable method to confirm truth.

Faith is what you have when you don't have evidence.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I am not convinced of this. The reason why in 3...2...1..


I already explained that you are concealing the approach to each. Obfuscation isn't going to work for you, either.

---

Precisely what I was talking about.

Did you claim to be familiar with formal logic? You keep using all these terms from formal logic, and yet you do not use the proper term for this?

Familiar? Yes. Efficient? I suppose not. Please explain how I'm falling short.

I just did. Try to keep up.

[spockrates]

I don't understand why you would associate yourself at all with Spock. Ever seen Star Trek V: The Final Frontier? Just curious.

Indeed. He seems to have an extremely superficial (mis)understanding of both logic and socratic questioning (which I find to be far too vulnerable to disingenuous misuse, as we see in this thread). I think if Spock or Socrates could be here, they would both bitch-slap him to death for sullying their good names.

I suppose I'd deserve it. But isn't the discussion digressing to ad homonym attacks on myself? My lack of knowledge of the philosophical discipline of logic should not keep us from seeking the truth about whether Christianity is a reasonable religion. Should it?

---

Familiar? Yes. Efficient? I suppose not. Please explain how I'm falling short.

I just did. Try to keep up.

Sorry, you're moving too fast. Try to dumb it down a little.

[Mystic]

I think I'm going to try to help our new friend here:

It's logically possible God exists.
It's logically possible this God sends a religion.
It's logically possible there will be evidence for this religion.
It's logically possible then to have well supported faith in this religion.
Therefore faith in a religion is not necessarily illogical, as far as logical possibilities go.
Therefore this proves faith in religion can be logical.

Now moving away from faith, the things to discuss.

1) Is there proof God exists (I do believe there is, but Atheists don't, so might want to work on this step).
2) Is there good reasons to believe God sent a religion? (As a Deist, I believe there is possible good reasons to not send a religion, and I would be happy to discuss those with you)
3) Is there such evidence for any religion? (ie. Muslims argue Quran being unique type of literature is such evidence, what is your evidence?)
4) While faith in a religion is not necessarily illogical, can you prove then in the real world, faith in a religion is not illogical? (ie. you might want to expand on the holy spirit or something)

Trying to help our new friend here.

[spockrates]

It would be committing an informal fallacy to adopt the opinion of an amateure when it contradicts that of the vast majority of professional scholars. Such would be illogical.

...no, that doesn't contradict logic. Trusting the professional opinion of a vast majority of scholars might be a useful heuristic--that is, it might lead you to true beliefs more often than it leads you to false beliefs--but that doesn't make it illogical to disagree with a vast majority of professional scholars.

A layperson (in the sense of not being a scientist) in, say, 1600 who believes that something like black holes exist...is not committing an error in logic merely because a vast majority of members in the set of "professional scholars" disagrees with his belief.

And when you really think about it, your argument would lead to some absurdity. Suppose that at time t, a vast majority of scholars believes that p. If your argument is true, then it entails contradiction for an amateur to assert ~p at time t.

Now suppose that at some time t' > t, a vast majority of scholars believes that ~p. If your argument is true, then it does not entail contradiction for an amateur to assert ~p at time t'.

Isn't this an absurd result? If ~p entails contradiction at time t, shouldn't it also entail contradiction at time t'? That is, either p entails contradiction, or it does not; why should this vary over time?

Yes, that sounds reasonable. Thank you. Please allow me to clarify: It is an informal logical fallacy to take the word of someone whose knowledge of the subject is suspect. Example: The profession basketball player Shak recommending the use of the Icy Hot patch to heal damaged muscle tissue. The man may be an expert in basketball, but not in medicine. Before one uses the patch, it would be wise to consult a physician.

Now in the case of the translation of the Greek word of the gospel being rope, rather than camel, the person suggesting this needs to demonstrate the one claiming the alternate translation knows what she is talking about. Sound reasonable?

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Indeed. He seems to have an extremely superficial (mis)understanding of both logic and socratic questioning (which I find to be far too vulnerable to disingenuous misuse, as we see in this thread). I think if Spock or Socrates could be here, they would both bitch-slap him to death for sullying their good names.

I suppose I'd deserve it. But isn't the discussion digressing to ad homonym attacks on myself?

That wasn't an attack. I can show you an attack...

You might want to look up what an ad hominem fallacy really means as well. If you are trying to paint my comments as fallacious, you have much to learn.

And by the way, I see disingenuousness and attempts to cheat in discourse as rude and uncivil, and respond accordingly. You have been warned.

My lack of knowledge of the philosophical discipline of logic should not keep us from seeking the truth about whether Christianity is a reasonable religion. Should it?

No, but lack of intellectual honesty will. You can correct this by catching up, and refraining from repeating the same errors as you are calledon them. Anything less is disingenuousness and cheating, which will get you stuffed with catnip.

---

I just did. Try to keep up.

Sorry, you're moving too fast. Try to dumb it down a little.

<Looks around for John Housman video clip>

We are not here to teach slow learners how to reason and think critically. If you are genuine you will take it upon yourself to catch up.

---

I think I'm going to try to help our new friend here:

It's logically possible God exists.
It's logically possible this God sends a religion.
It's logically possible there will be evidence for this religion.
It's logically possible then to have well supported faith in this religion.
Therefore faith in a religion is not necessarily illogical, as far as logical possibilities go.
Therefore this proves faith in religion can be logical.

Now moving away from faith, the things to discuss.

1) Is there proof God exists (I do believe there is, but Atheists don't, so might want to work on this step).
2) Is there good reasons to believe God sent a religion? (As a Deist, I believe there is possible good reasons to not send a religion, and I would be happy to discuss those with you)
3) Is there such evidence for any religion? (ie. Muslims argue Quran being unique type of literature is such evidence, what is your evidence?)
4) While faith in a religion is not necessarily illogical, can you prove then in the real world, faith in a religion is not illogical? (ie. you might want to expand on the holy spirit or something)

Trying to help our new friend here.

You are not helping at all. Your nonsensical twaddle above is even more incoherent thsn his is. Please do not muddy up the waters even further than he has. Let him focus on the fundamental mistakes of his approach and correct them.

---

...no, that doesn't contradict logic. Trusting the professional opinion of a vast majority of scholars might be a useful heuristic--that is, it might lead you to true beliefs more often than it leads you to false beliefs--but that doesn't make it illogical to disagree with a vast majority of professional scholars.

A layperson (in the sense of not being a scientist) in, say, 1600 who believes that something like black holes exist...is not committing an error in logic merely because a vast majority of members in the set of "professional scholars" disagrees with his belief.

And when you really think about it, your argument would lead to some absurdity. Suppose that at time t, a vast majority of scholars believes that p. If your argument is true, then it entails contradiction for an amateur to assert ~p at time t.

Now suppose that at some time t' > t, a vast majority of scholars believes that ~p. If your argument is true, then it does not entail contradiction for an amateur to assert ~p at time t'.

Isn't this an absurd result? If ~p entails contradiction at time t, shouldn't it also entail contradiction at time t'? That is, either p entails contradiction, or it does not; why should this vary over time?

Yes, that sounds reasonable. Thank you. Please allow me to clarify: It is an informal logical fallacy to take the word of someone whose knowledge of the subject is suspect. Example: The profession basketball player Shak recommending the use of the Icy Hot patch to heal damaged muscle tissue. The man may be an expert in basketball, but not in medicine. Before one uses the patch, it would be wise to consult a physician.

Now in the case of the translation of the Greek word of the gospel being rope, rather than camel, the person suggesting this needs to demonstrate the one claiming the alternate translation knows what she is talking about. Sound reasonable?

You are way ahead of yourself, junior. Quibbling over words in a fairy tale story isn't even on the table. Start with the basics. You haven't gotten past the mistakes of your OP yet.

And BTW, your argument fails the Village Idiot's Test: Even the Village Idiot can see that The Emperor Has No Clothes.

[spockrates]

The dialog is digressing to hostility. Perhaps it would be a mistake to continue. The fault is mine for asking such a broad and vague question at the get go. I'll try asking one more specific and clear next time. Thank you all for your attempts to answer, or constructive criticisms. Love you all!