RE: Are Theists Illogical for Believing in God?
June 4, 2010 at 9:26 pm
(This post was last modified: June 4, 2010 at 9:35 pm by The_Flying_Skeptic.)
(June 4, 2010 at 10:55 am)remza Wrote: The main point he was trying to make is that in cases where science is not our source of information, we cannot automatically assume that reason has ceased to function and evidence has ceased to be relevant.
I'm not totally sure what you trying to say. I tried to come up with an example of what you may be trying to say: well, if someone was flying in public, which is totally contradictory to what we knew for sure (this new phenomena of a person flying would mark a new era in science, and before that would be the 'post unnatural flight science'), someone is still flying no matter how contradictory this new phenomena is and now this phenomena is simply incorporated into science or human knowledge.
Let me know if I'm on the same page with you with my example. But what I was truly trying to say in the thread was simply that a person may be logical on false or unsubstantiated premises and calling a theist 'illogical' is inaccurate. The theists response to this is that his beliefs/conclusions are based on logical arguments.
All cats are green. / premise 1
Jim is a cat. / premise 2
Jim is green. / the conclusion based on premise 1 and 2
we know that not all cats are green but you can't call me illogical because I made a logical argument. I wasn't being 'illogical'. The premises of the argument are however negligent of human knowledge that dictates that not all cats are green as most theists are negligent to the sum of all human knowledge supporting a naturally driven universe over a universe that allows a person to walk on water and spontaneous healing amputees but this negligence is different from being illogical. Let's not call it a negligence either, it's prioritizing isolated, personal experiences over general, common experience.
