Are Theists Illogical for Believing in God?

[fr0d0]

You are a very odd theist.

Bless you. Don't forget the $$

[Minimalist]

You'll have to settle for rep.

[Paul the Human]

---

I don't think that a belief in the supernatural is logical,

Belief if the supernatural is almost invariably logical. The most common logical form is the syllogism. It has been argued that this form of logic forms the basis of Western philosophy.

Logic does not guarantee truth.The form of an argument may be logically valid,but the inference untrue.

--especially when it is a belief in an omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent being. '

The Abrahamic god ,with its infinite attributes is seen by many (not all) as a logical contradiction.

God did it' is not a 'logical explanation' for anything.

The God of the gaps is logical enough,especially in a pre scientific society.It is an argument from ignorance,using all available information. That theists today still use it indicates their ignorance ,not lack of logic.

Your assertion seems to imply that the materialist beliefs held by most atheists are formed and maintained by reason and logic. That there is a superiority over naive theists. I have seen no evidence to support such a view.My observation is that human beings, as individuals and as as a species, are incapable of consistent rational thought or behaviour.

---

Well, alrighty then. I have misused the word 'logical' and appreciate the correction. It's still make-believe, though! At least I still have that!

[Caecilian]

---

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

I've always found that illogical. It presupposes an alternate reality where God would be different to the logical God we define that fit's this reality.

God chooses to defeat evil and does. Gods plan is obviously not to prevent evil, or there'd be none. God by his nature defeats evil. Being a positive force he could do no other.

A classic philosophical answer is Leibniz' (lampooned in Voltaire's famous novel, "Candide")
The answer is that this is the best of all possible worlds. What that means is that it would be possible for a world to exists with less evil, or even no evil in it. But such a world would not be as good as the actual world that exists. Why is that? Because all evils are necessary evils. Which is to say, that unless that evil existed, a compensating good would not exist.
An example: consider the good of compassion or the good of pity. It would be impossible for there to be compassion or for there to be pity unless there was the need for compassion or the need for pity. Thus, for compassion or pity to exist, there has to be pain.

So the idea is this:
1. Every evil is necessary for some good,
2. And the good more than compensates for the evil which is necessary for it.

Origen, an early Christian scholar and theologian, suggested that the problem of evil was a misnomer. Origen's response to this was the concept of Apocatastasis. Simply stated, the ends justify the means. That is, all of creation is reconciled by its purpose of facilitating freewill.

The fifth century theologian Augustine of Hippo mounted what has become one of the most popular defences of the existence of God against the Epicurean paradox. He maintained that evil was only privatio boni, or a privation of good. If evil, like darkness, does not truly exist, but is only a name we give to our perception of privatio boni, then our widespread observation of evil does not preclude the possibility of a benevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent God.

--Augustine basically states that good and evil are, in some circumstances, asymmetrical.

---

So you really think that all is best in the best of all possible worlds? Are you serious?

Perhaps we should award some sort of posthumous medal to Stalin for having allowed more 'compensating good' than anyone else in history.

[Purple Rabbit]

So you really think that all is best in the best of all possible worlds? Are you serious?

Perhaps we should award some sort of posthumous medal to Stalin for having allowed more 'compensating good' than anyone else in history.

Never mind the bollocks. The best possible world as a solution to the problem of evil has been debunked by religion itself as it invented a better than best possible world called heaven.

[Tiberius]

Ah, but surely the point of Heaven is that it is a place you go, rather than a separate place you exist in. In other words, in Heaven, you still have the perspective of having been on Earth, and thus "evil" still exists for you in comparative terms.

Only if Heaven was a completely separate world where the inhabitants had no prior knowledge of "less perfect" worlds (i.e. ours), would it be the "debunking" of the problem of evil as you say.

[Purple Rabbit]

I did not mean that heaven is a solution to the problem. Even if memory is erased at the pearly gates, the evil still has been done.

What I meant was that christianity itself has already debunked the concept of best possible world as a solution to the problem of evil. In the christian dogma god created heaven and earth, so two possible worlds of which heaven is generally portrayed (again in that same dogma) as the better world. So if our earthly world is the best possible world, heaven should not be possible. Of course the latter is not acceptable for christians for they would miss out on the heavenly singing and the fortune cookies.

[Purple Rabbit]

Faith is illogical.

Amen.

The God concept in Christianity is acutely logical.

For those with illogical faith it would certainly seem that way, isn't it?

[fr0d0]

Y'know sometimes I mistake you for someone with a grain of intelligence Rabbit.

[Purple Rabbit]

Y'know sometimes I mistake you for someone with a grain of intelligence Rabbit.

Cheer up. The illogic of faith may lead you anywhere.

Oh, and thanks for supplying the quote.