Is Christianity Illogical?

[spockrates]

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.

Yes, I agree. Christianity is not necessarily illogical, but any logical argument (like a chain) is only as good as its weakest link (that is, premise). Which premise (1), (2), (3), or (4) do you think weakest, and why?

[Minimalist]

[spockrates]

Science, it works, biatch!

Faith in science works, hence faith works! Right back at 'ya!

:p

---

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

Isn't every question aimed at finding the answer whether Christianity is illogical, and if so, why? Some questions might be passes, and others runs for first downs, and others punts. But they're all aiming at one goal or the other--either the religion is logical, or it's illogical. Makes no difference where the ball is after each play. The goals have not changed. Wouldn't you say?

[Mystic]

spockrates

There is good reasons to believe Christianity is false, I've provided some.

Trinity, Contradictory promises, etc

[spockrates]

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.

...

---

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

Perhaps there is both an art and science to mathematics et. al?

---

spockrates

There is good reasons to believe Christianity is false, I've provided some.

Trinity, Contradictory promises, etc

Sorry, I must have missed those replies to this thread. Please explain once more. For instance, why is the concept of Trinity illogical?

[Gambit]

The first is weakest; as without it all others fall down. The reason it is weakest is because we are constantly uncovering new evidence that disproves the claim.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I'm not sure what aspect of Christian you want to know we think is illogical (if you're thinking of the "proof" of prophecy, see my first post on this thread which you appear not to have read). It depends too on what version of Christianity you're talking about. There's so much disagreement among Christians on basic issues such as salvation (works, faith, faith+works, faith+submission, or faith+submission+works? etc, etc). Christians can't even agree how to read the Bible.

I can't really answer your question "Is Christianity Illogical?" because it's too vague a question. Give us something to work with.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Is Christianity illogical? Of course not; logic is only a tool, working on the principle GIGO . Logic guarantees truth if and only if the premise is true.

In formal logic,all propositions begin "IF A-----" IE; truth of the premise is assumed for the sake of argument. No argument used by believers to validate their religion is based on demonstrable truth. Their argument(s) may be logically valid,but may not be claimed to be true. The existence of God(s) is not a given,only an unproven assertion.

Many of loopier beliefs ,such as much of Catholicism,Mormonism,and young earth creationism are maintained through doublethink or cognitive dissonance..


Their beliefs manage to remain logical ,as the premises on which they are built are believed to be true.


000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

GIGO= Garbage In Garbage Out

Doublethink, a word coined by George Orwell in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, describes the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.[1] It is related to, but distinct from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Its opposite is cognitive dissonance, where the two beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is an integral concept of George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. The word doublethink is part of Newspeak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.[1] The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.[1] An example of this would be the conflict between wanting to smoke and knowing that smoking is unhealthy; a person may try to change their feelings about the odds that they will actually suffer the consequences, or they might add the consonant element that the smoking is worth short term benefits. A general view of cognitive dissonance is when one is biased towards a certain decision even though other factors favour an alternative.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

[Polaris]

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.

For someone who claims to be a linguist, you need to read the dictionary.

[Mystic]

Sorry, I must have missed those replies to this thread. Please explain once more. For instance, why is the concept of Trinity illogical?

Here is the post:

1. Trinity.

It doesn't make sense. You worship both Jesus and the father whom are distinct yet one? If you worship both, that makes two gods.

Then trinity is saying, they are all one god. But this would only make sense if they are each other. Son = Father. Then God would be both father of himself and son of himself, which would make him son of the son, and father of the father.

Therefore this concept seemed like an illogical way to try to solve the very fact that Christianity calls to worship more then One being while trying to remain monotheistic.

2. Hell for non-believers.

Really, this paints an evil non-caring image of God. He loves believers enough to give them eternal paradise, the same is not true of non-believers. If the holy spirit called to Christianity, it certainly wasn't very loud. In the name of justice, he will torture people for eternity. Do you feel that cold towards non-believers? If not, they why should God?

3. Lack of proof

Many people desire the light, but are not guided to Christianity. There is good people in all sorts of religions that don't believe in Christianity. If the holy spirit is suppose to be the proof, it certainly doesn't seem that way to me, or most people for that matter. It rather seems only that way, to people whom believe.

4. Being super upset at polytheists.

Polytheists almost all worshipped God as the Highest. I don't see why he is so upset at the concept. Being a Jealous God seems quite illogical.

5. Believers whom are disobedient to God and the promises in bible.

I know it's possible to have faith in Jesus yet sin and be disobedient to God. However, the bible states those whom don't obey God in all his commands, will not enter paradise. And says those whom believe will enter paradise. Therefore you have a contradiction.

It also states that you must not desire the life of this world. Yet faithful people can desire the life of this world. Therefore while bible promises salvation, it also promises them damnation. A clear contradiction.

6. All sorts of contradictions and inspiration

If it was inspired, people could have been surely inspired only to write what they know? Right. In that case, there wouldn't be contradictions.

If such people were writing things they don't know, then it hardly seems inspired and reflective of God's will.