SoulPancake / Conversations / Are God and Logic Incompatible?

Jump into a Conversation about Life's' Big Questions

zamfir

- 3 years ago

Feature
0
Like
Follow

Are God and Logic Incompatible?

I have seen many logical arguments for the existence of God, and have participated in many such arguments. God proponents are only too happy to debate the existence of God on logical grounds. What I tend to find amazing is that while a believer will use logic when it is convenient, when they find that they are losing the argument on logical grounds, they tend to opt out of the conversation with something like, "Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree," or "God is not constrained by your human logic," or something similar. If God and logic are fundamentally incompatible, why then will proponents utilize logic to make a case for God, but exempt him from the rules when they lose? Is an illogical God likely? Is believing in such a God logical?

Recent Discussed Liked

First level responses second level responses

I would say that our human logic cannot fully grasp God. Zamfir you already know that I am a Christian. If we as a human could fully grasp God than would God really be God? I refer again to Isaih 55:9 when God explains that his ways are higher than our ways.

No time to read all these surely great responses (gotta head off to class, Religion seminar coincidentally, lol, and we're talking about this exact subject right now... weird)... BUT: Just tell anyone trying to prove God exists through logic that subjecting a deity of that sort to reasonability necessarily decreases his stature to that of our own realm of existence. If they're comfortable doing that to their own perfect God, then you may proceed (and the atheist will win, btw), but I haven't met any religious folks who were willing to do such a thing. If you don't, however, God is untouchable through logic (even though you could technically dispatch certain religious concepts, character God is supposed to have, historical accuracy of texts, etc. that's all still up for grabs).

Thank you for your answer. " I don't think that Baha'is really see it as such" Well , baha'is follow bahai intitutions. Catholics follow the Pope. That makes sense . "They have learned and shown such love and compassion for the world and really put "the needs of the many" first. " Very cool but you guys just be very careful with that because that is also the motto of people like Chavez, Hitler , Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin , Castro , ect etc etc When you are part of "the many " it feels ok but when you are part of the few, It is a different story.

With all due respect: I think you have proven my point as far as semantics is concerned. From the start of this topic, there has been a need to define "God" as well as an insistence upon the use of logic exclusively. Also, I don't think we are on a "level playing field", as obviously, we are "playing" by your "rules." There is no logical way to prove God, provided the definition of "logic" used refers to "correct reasoning" or the science thereof. There is no "correct" way to reason God. So, yes, an illogical God is likely. Is believing in such a God logical? No, but one cannot infer that is is unreasonable.

*read: ...logic to give a possible explanation..

I have reason to believe that God exists in one example, I also have reason to give a possible explanation of said example. I recently went through a bout of anti-materialism, in which I tried to rid myself of some "things." When the bout subsided, I lost the one "thing" most dear to me. I have reason to believe that God was teaching me a lesson. I also have logic that tells me that I was being careless, therefore putting myself in a position to lose that "thing." In instances like this, I tend to favor my heart instead of my mind. I choose to take it as a lesson from God. I also learned not to be careless as a result of both my heart and mind.

In essence, my answer to your question is this, and you may think that I am succumbing to the mindset of the believer, but I am not. Logic does not apply. Both parties are in error at the start. The atheist has reasoned that there is no logical basis for the existence of God. The believer has reason to believe in the existence of God and is mistaken in thinking that, through logical discussion, he can give insight to his reasoning.

How could Whatever It Is that brings the universe into existence be illogical. Look at the makeup of the very least natural thing, not man made, you can find and proclaim to the world that it is not logical in its design. If there be justice, this will be acknowledged; but there are some people who, even if all the proofs in the world be adduced before them, still will not judge justly! 37 (Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 36) The greatest problem is that of intellectual opposition to anything that the individual hasn't already accepted as truth. Thus he or she is prejudiced and may be unaware of the distinctions of evidence. Over the years I've been in 100s of conversations on the subject of the existence of God. Many of the people who claim belief in science as the end all and be all amazingly do not know evidence from doors and are dogmatic in their insistence that science is all there is. Well, the term science implies a method of exploring the environment. If the method is good then the results will be good otherwise they will be dismal. Same goes for logic. Even if the method departs from logic for some reason and the results are successful the logic can be used to backwards engineer the result once the logic is known. Obviously. The truth is you can't always follow logic in an experiment because you don't know what it is. So the best thing to do at times like that is to try the improbable or give up and wait or whatever you can think of that you might have missed in the exploration. People who have never produced any real results in the way of invention or scientific discovery are hard proponents of logic and don't really know what it takes to get the job done. It takes more than logic friends. Much more. It takes imagination. You can ask Einstein about that: “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” Sometimes its right to ditch logic. Of course, it is probably true that it's logical to ditch logic at some point. So you aren't really abandoning it at all.

I'm going to summarize the ethics of Belief by William K. Clifford (as suggested by dancingplatypus) here because I find it extremely relevant to the issue: To sum up: it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call into question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it--the life of that man is one long sin against mankind. If this judgment seems harsh when applied to those simple souls who have never known better, who have been brought up from the cradle with a horror of doubt, and taught that their eternal welfare depends on what they believe, then it leads to the very serious question, Who hath made Israel to sin? It may be permitted me to fortify this judgment with the sentence of Milton-- A man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he believe things only because his pastor says so, or the assembly so determine, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.[1] And with this famous aphorism of Coleridge-- He who begins by loving Christianity better than Truth, will proceed by loving his own sect or Church better than Christianity, and end loving himself better than all.[2] Inquiry into the evidence of a doctrine is not to be made once for all, and then taken as finally settled. It is never lawful to stifle a doubt; for either it can be honestly answered by means of the inquiry already made, or else it proves that the inquiry was not complete. "But," says one, "I am a busy man; I have no time for the long course of study which would be necessary to make me in any degree a competent judge of certain questions, or even able to understand the nature of the arguments." Then he should have no time to believe.

Maybe God should be defined before debating if he's logical? Ouch, conundrum? Defined on a basic, elementary level, I mean. I'll believe that particular religions' definitions of God can be disproved by logical proofs because religion has woven its own tangled web by bringing human interaction and understanding into their books. But if your definition of God is that which we cannot logically understand (ie intuition, emotion, etc), then how can you disprove that existence? Or is that another discussion for another day? I'm willing to let it rest, if so! My curiosity was just peaked...

Example: Mantra Five of the Isha Upanishad "The Supreme Lord walks and does not walk. He is far away, but He is very near as well. He is within everything, and yet he is outside of everything." This is an incredibly illogical statement. But within the spiritual EXPERIENCE, it makes perfect sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Guide_For_The_Perplexed" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Guide_For_The_Perplexed

@zamfir You've probably read (or heard about) the Da Vinci code and all the controversy it caused. However Dan Brown's other book and newest movie Angels and Demons addresses almost exactly what your asking. Can God and Science co-exist. I reccomend reading this book just to get a kind of ...... ehh.... look at another viewpoint? I don't totally agree with everything in the book, but just read it and read the whole thing. Because the beggining and the middle won't give you what happens at the end. No matter what you think

At this point, I am ready to accept that God and logic ARE incompatible. Logic is something that we use to learn about and relate to our physical existence and surroundings. Therefore, it is my belief that we should not attempt to apply it to our spiritual beliefs and experiences. Trying to teach about God through logic is like trying to teach a Vulcan humor. The ability to be illogical is what makes us human. The material world is perceived sensually, while the spiritual world is experienced. Logic and spirituality exist on two separate planes, the only connection between the two is a human being. To balance the equation, we need to learn how to live both within our spiritual experience and as a perpetually connected part of our material world.

A God that makes no sense, makes no sense. Imho, a belief in God, in the most abstract, non-dogmatic sense is no more irrational than absolute atheism. Neither can be proved. Just to clarify, that doesn't mean that rationally, creationism is remotely probable, unless God is an impish SOB.

Simple answer? Yes. For now. But disproving something does not prove the alternative. Just because God isn't logical-- in our limited use of logic, and limited understanding of our world-- does not mean he/she/it doesn't exist, and that's where these arguments always go awry. We're simply not evolved enough to understand it... Yet? Religious believers are constantly attacked and berated for their belief in something nobody can see or understand. If one has to understand and define something in order to believe it, fine, but let the believers believe until it can logically be proven on either side. But questions like this are crucial because if everyone quit believing, or alternatively believed blindly, we'd quit learning. So, thank you :o)

I think it depends on the terms of the God. For instance, one can say that for a thing to be, it must be created. Creation implies the existence of one that creates. Therefore, since things are, or since there is, there is something which has created. The best refutation I found of this, though, is the argument that, based on such logic, there would then have to be a creator of that which created all that is, which engenders an endless sequence of creators, and so becomes foolish. Either way, darkness would have to be considered as the ultimate origin, which has some interesting philosophical implications. I think it comes down to an inability to rationally prove one position or the other. Science can only take one so far, and observe and extract information from the active universe. No one can really say why the big bang occurred - but I guess the burden of proof lies with the one making the affirmative argument, so belief in God will always come down to a matter of faith, but so does a belief in the non-existence of any such reality. There are some questions, I think, that are impossible to answer to a degree of absolute certainty: chance or determination, God or no God, etc.

Well I always found it interesting that you have to believe in God to be accepted by him. I never debate with religious believers, because the constant result is simply "I believe in God because he's real/ because I have faith" Faith always cancels out Logic in debates, because at that point you're arguing with a wall. I think it would be very interesting if anything else in the world functioned like religion. "2+2=5, because I have a lot of faith in that result and I'm not supposed to question it"

i believe that logic, while being a "human" characteristic, is also a quality given by God. i think God allows us to stretch our minds and think through things including Him. Not that he can be defined completely but we define God through logic the best that we are able to with our finite and human minds. however, i think its important to understand and not forget that we can not define God or his works. ecclesiastes 11: 5 as you do not know what is the way of the wind or how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child, so you do not know the works of God who makes everything.

The question is "Are God and Logic Incompatible", but in my mind, it should be expanded to include the relationship with humans god may or may not have and the distinction between "God Logic" and "People Logic". So, a "logical argument" being something you can only build from a fact you know FOR CERTAIN, a logical proof of god is out of the question, really, as most "evidence" is spiritual. Here is where the mistake is made, in my mind; a person is deeply touched by their faith, and they know FOR CERTAIN that the have been affected, divinely. They are within their mental ability to build a logical argument for the existence of God, but the moment they share it with you, it falls apart as spiritual testimony. Back to my original point, and taking into account the earlier definition for a logical argument, God and Logic are incompatible, but only so much as God does not change, and what human beings as a species knows for certain does not change. I hope I'm being clear in this. Let me know if I'm not.

@zamfir Kansas City, Missouri

Follow Message

More Conversations from zamfir

People often ask me how I can have morals without an objective moral standard, which, I am... 11 Responses Agree/disagree? 6 Responses Conservative Cognitive Dissonance 14 Responses Causes of confusion about evolution 12 Responses When is greed bad? 38 Responses

Show More ↓

SoulPancake

zamfir

Are God and Logic Incompatible?

vmc2

I would say that our human logic cannot fully grasp God. Zamfir you already know that I am a Christian. If we as a human could fully grasp God than would God really be God? I refer again to Isaih 55:9 when God explains that his ways are higher than our ways.

krillinhazuki

GusGo

syrinx29

syrinx29

*read: ...logic to give a possible explanation..

syrinx29

syrinx29

clydebulawayo

zamfir

nobodyknows47

syrinx29

Example: Mantra Five of the Isha Upanishad "The Supreme Lord walks and does not walk. He is far away, but He is very near as well. He is within everything, and yet he is outside of everything." This is an incredibly illogical statement. But within the spiritual EXPERIENCE, it makes perfect sense.

syrinx29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Guide_For_The_Perplexed" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Guide_For_The_Perplexed

MissKJI

syrinx29

Michael7843853

A God that makes no sense, makes no sense. Imho, a belief in God, in the most abstract, non-dogmatic sense is no more irrational than absolute atheism. Neither can be proved. Just to clarify, that doesn't mean that rationally, creationism is remotely probable, unless God is an impish SOB.

nobodyknows47

AJokerman

lauralaurent

frontz

Rasputnik

Are God and Logic Incompatible?

I would say that our human logic cannot fully grasp God. Zamfir you already know that I am a Christian. If we as a human could fully grasp God than would God really be God? I refer again to Isaih 55:9 when God explains that his ways are higher than our ways.

*read: ...logic to give a possible explanation..

Example: Mantra Five of the Isha Upanishad "The Supreme Lord walks and does not walk. He is far away, but He is very near as well. He is within everything, and yet he is outside of everything." This is an incredibly illogical statement. But within the spiritual EXPERIENCE, it makes perfect sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Guide_For_The_Perplexed" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Guide_For_The_Perplexed

A God that makes no sense, makes no sense. Imho, a belief in God, in the most abstract, non-dogmatic sense is no more irrational than absolute atheism. Neither can be proved. Just to clarify, that doesn't mean that rationally, creationism is remotely probable, unless God is an impish SOB.

What's Next?