Is Christianity Illogical?

[LastPoet]

The original poster seems to like moving the goal post. WTTW: 1+1=2 due to a strict framework of reason and logic called mathematics, don't try to make it less that its greatness. Keep on the subject, explain why there is a logical necessity for your vaunted god beside your pride and willingness to deceive us into believing something you yourself have trouble believing.

[spockrates]

Glad you got a kick out of the user name.



Regarding scientific evidence, are there not things we know are true despite any science to prove them? For example, we know that the word love is spelled love for non-scientific reasons. English is a language, not a science. We know 1 + 1 = 2, because mathematics (not science) tells us so. We know Plato was a student of Socrates, and Aristotle was a student of Plato, and Alexander the Great was a student of Aristotle. Yet it is historical evidence, rather than scientific evidence that causes us to elieve. Not all truth is proven true by science; don't you agree?

Actually, the study of history is a science. How do you think we know what we know? Archaeology, linguistics, philology, etc. are all sciences.

As for your assertion about language, I happen to be a linguist, and I'm going to have to disagree with you. We know the word 'love' is spelled 'love' because we have science that tells us the evolution of the word. English may not be a science, but then again neither are atoms. The study thereof is where science comes into play.

Pardon my lack of scientific knowledge about science! It sounds as though you are saying all knowledge is science. Am I misunderstanding you?

---

The original poster seems to like moving the goal post. WTTW: 1+1=2 due to a strict framework of reason and logic called mathematics, don't try to make it less that its greatness. Keep on the subject, explain why there is a logical necessity for your vaunted god beside your pride and willingness to deceive us into believing something you yourself have trouble believing.

Thanks for the advice. Where should the goal posts be?

[LastPoet]

Science, it works, biatch!

[Hovik]

Actually, the study of history is a science. How do you think we know what we know? Archaeology, linguistics, philology, etc. are all sciences.

As for your assertion about language, I happen to be a linguist, and I'm going to have to disagree with you. We know the word 'love' is spelled 'love' because we have science that tells us the evolution of the word. English may not be a science, but then again neither are atoms. The study thereof is where science comes into play.

Pardon my lack of scientific knowledge about science! It sounds as though you are saying all knowledge is science. Am I misunderstanding you?

I didn't say knowledge is science. What I'm saying is all knowledge about the world is obtained through science. By science, I mean the observation and testing of the world around us in a formalized, logical, and rigorous manner. To quote Thomas Huxley, "the deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence. Science is simply common sense at its best--that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic."

[Polaris]

Glad you got a kick out of the user name.



Regarding scientific evidence, are there not things we know are true despite any science to prove them? For example, we know that the word love is spelled love for non-scientific reasons. English is a language, not a science. We know 1 + 1 = 2, because mathematics (not science) tells us so. We know Plato was a student of Socrates, and Aristotle was a student of Plato, and Alexander the Great was a student of Aristotle. Yet it is historical evidence, rather than scientific evidence that causes us to elieve. Not all truth is proven true by science; don't you agree?

Actually, the study of history is a science. How do you think we know what we know? Archaeology, linguistics, philology, etc. are all sciences.

As for your assertion about language, I happen to be a linguist, and I'm going to have to disagree with you. We know the word 'love' is spelled 'love' because we have science that tells us the evolution of the word. English may not be a science, but then again neither are atoms. The study thereof is where science comes into play.

Language was not always written down and therefore the study of it is not necessarily a science, which deals with the study of the material. Science is about the physical...it is what separates itself from the realm of myth and its many guises.

[Gambit]

Gambit:

Perhaps this would be a more complete and logical argument?

1. The Old Testament contains predictions of the future
2. These predictions are specific and verifiable
3. They are predictions their authors could never have known would occur
4. Only a God, or someone from the future would know the future with 100% accuracy 100% of the time
Therefore
A. The writing of the Old Testament was guided by God, or someone from the future


I'm thinking the 4 premises support the conclusion (A) and so the conclusion might be true, as long as none of the premises are proven untrue. How about you? What do you think?

The question has already been adequately answered before I got to it, but here's my two pennies worth. Yes, they support the conclusion provided they are true. That makes your argument logical only in the sense that it adheres to the accepted rules of an argument. However, before accepting any assertion/preposition/premise we most examine them, test them and verify them. I would disagree with teaearlgreyhot (Hope I got that right from memory), only in that we cannot actually verify either the Christian or counter-evidence. By which I mean, other assertions can be introduced to the argument which will then either have to be proven, debunked or at least accepted in order to continue. For every secular review of the OT, some clever Christian scholar will come along with claims/evidence that they believe shifts the argument back in their favor, and visa versa. It all hinges on the credibility of each source, and whether both sides can come to agreement on the evidence those sources provide.

It's for these reasons that many believe that the only honest position to hold in relation to Gods is Agnostic. Most of the evidence from either side comes from written texts whose authors cannot be called to account. Therefore, we have to weigh up what makes sense with all the other data we have - geological, archaeological etc. and the consistency of written accounts. However, if we adopt the position where we say that we cannot know, then logic favors non-believe over belief. Simply put, in the absence of credible and verifiable evidence of the positive claim, we have no reason to believe.

I hope that makes sense. I have difficulty in getting my train of thought from my brain onto the computer.

[Hovik]

Actually, the study of history is a science. How do you think we know what we know? Archaeology, linguistics, philology, etc. are all sciences.

As for your assertion about language, I happen to be a linguist, and I'm going to have to disagree with you. We know the word 'love' is spelled 'love' because we have science that tells us the evolution of the word. English may not be a science, but then again neither are atoms. The study thereof is where science comes into play.

Language was not always written down and therefore the study of it is not necessarily a science, which deals with the study of the material. Science is about the physical...it is what separates itself from the realm of myth and its many guises.

Well, you'd be wrong. Linguistics primarily studies speech, not written language. However, because we can't actively study the speech of people who are long dead, we use linguistic methods to analyze written language to give us insights about the speech of those who wrote the documents. Linguistics works hand-in-hand with archaeology and anthropology to determine past life-ways and language use.

It's really kind of funny how completely wrong you are sometimes.

[spockrates]

Pardon my lack of scientific knowledge about science! It sounds as though you are saying all knowledge is science. Am I misunderstanding you?

I didn't say knowledge is science. What I'm saying is all knowledge about the world is obtained through science. By science, I mean the observation and testing of the world around us in a formalized, logical, and rigorous manner. To quote Thomas Huxley, "the deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence. Science is simply common sense at its best--that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic."

Thanks, and please forgive my being slow to understand, but I thought science was that which uses the scientific method as proof, and the scientific method requires repeating some experiment. For example, one might use the scientific method to verify a cure for AIDS by repeating the same treatment with the same chemical compounds documented by another scientist. Since historical events cannot be repeated, how does the scientific method verify historical events?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

The goal posts have been moved so far in this thread that I'm afraid we're now in the stadium bleachers.

[jonb]

Dear Sherloc O'crate and all
Is this an entirely Irish thread?
Maths is an Art it seems nobody is using the proper catorgrisation of subjects.



To keep the absurdist nature of this thread up these are orthodox priests in training