Why Christianity May Be the Most Logical Religion.

[Eodnhoj7]

Perhaps it is the most logical, especially so in its efforts to conjoin absurdities into a system as Christianity has, an enterprise Scholasticism was extremely adept at. Its requirement to think in a highly rigorous trained manner grooved the illogic of its premises into logical statements and conclusions. This type of groundwork in metering thought through logic proved itself preliminary to the Scientific Revolution where Abstractions were the one's observed, not merely invented and argued about.

Scientific abstractions are invented and argued about. How can a universe operate according to laws if laws are what rational beings follow?

[Lacewing]

It's not about MY definition of logical. The question is put to YOU, based on what YOU think. Please don't play games. Too many people do that here. Are there any ideas or beliefs that YOU think are illogical? If so, then you should be able to put yourself in that scenario I presented, and answer it for yourself, based on what/how you think.

So what is logic if Christianity is illogical?

Why do you keep avoiding the question of speaking for yourself? You started this thread. You claimed to be talking about logic. And now you won't answer questions about how YOU, yourself, perceive what is logical and what is not. You just want to make claims and continually avoid answering the questions PUT TO YOU. Aren't you the least bit in conflict over how superficial, contrived, and unbalanced that is? The questions are not a trick -- but perhaps you suspect what might be revealed?

[Dubious]

Perhaps it is the most logical, especially so in its efforts to conjoin absurdities into a system as Christianity has, an enterprise Scholasticism was extremely adept at. Its requirement to think in a highly rigorous trained manner grooved the illogic of its premises into logical statements and conclusions. This type of groundwork in metering thought through logic proved itself preliminary to the Scientific Revolution where Abstractions were the one's observed, not merely invented and argued about.

Scientific abstractions are invented and argued about. How can a universe operate according to laws if laws are what rational beings follow?

Why should they be separate? It would be somewhat irrational to accept our own laws in lieu of those which rule the universe. What makes something rational is its applied logic whether it's to god and religion as a wholly self-made construct or the universe to which we submit in order to understand. In short, rationality is not an option if we are to interpret the universe according to its laws or simply devise our own systems based on the constructs of logic.

Tying the two ends of your question together the answer is already inherent within it. Strange you didn't notice that!

[Eodnhoj7]

It's not about MY definition of logical. The question is put to YOU, based on what YOU think. Please don't play games. Too many people do that here. Are there any ideas or beliefs that YOU think are illogical? If so, then you should be able to put yourself in that scenario I presented, and answer it for yourself, based on what/how you think.

So what is logic if Christianity is illogical?

Why do you keep avoiding the question of speaking for yourself?

I am not, I said Hegelian synthesis is a grounding for the logic behind it.

You started this thread. You claimed to be talking about logic.
And I said logic is the connection and seperation of assumptions.

And now you won't answer questions about how YOU, yourself, perceive what is logical and what is not.

See above, I answered the question as to what logic is, but again.

1. The source manifests and image which is seperate from it.
2. The source reassumed the image, thus connecting to it.
3. The image takes on a new form through the source.

You just want to make claims and continually avoid answering the questions PUT TO YOU. Aren't you the least bit in conflict over how superficial, contrived, and unbalanced that is?

Uhh... I answered your questions multiple times and even answered them again above.

The questions are not a trick -- but perhaps you suspect what might be revealed?

What I want revealed is what you think logic is if you claim to know what illogic is...I answered my half.

[Eodnhoj7]

Perhaps it is the most logical, especially so in its efforts to conjoin absurdities into a system as Christianity has, an enterprise Scholasticism was extremely adept at. Its requirement to think in a highly rigorous trained manner grooved the illogic of its premises into logical statements and conclusions. This type of groundwork in metering thought through logic proved itself preliminary to the Scientific Revolution where Abstractions were the one's observed, not merely invented and argued about.

Scientific abstractions are invented and argued about. How can a universe operate according to laws if laws are what rational beings follow?

Why should they be separate?
They shouldn't be, but if you claim the universe is rational and reason occurs through anthropomorphic entities, then any law the universe follows necessitates it as having awareness. I have no problem with this.


It would be somewhat irrational to accept our own laws in lieu of those which rule the universe.
If laws rule the universe then the universe has a choice in obeying them as laws can be broken.

What makes something rational is its applied logic whether it's to god and religion as a wholly self-made construct or the universe to which we submit in order to understand. In short, rationality is not an option if we are to interpret the universe according to its laws or simply devise our own systems based on the constructs of logic.

Where is the proof the universe always follows the laws prescribed to it?



Tying the two ends of your question together the answer is already inherent within it. Strange you didn't notice that!

[Lacewing]

What I want revealed is what you think logic is if you claim to know what illogic is...I answered my half.

Things that are not real to me are illogical to use as a basis for anything. (I already said this.) Things that ARE real to me enable me to witness, measure, see patterns, and make connections -- and that provides a basis for my logic.

You said this:

To disagree with the argument because of premises does not disagree with what the logical form is, the logic is how the assertions connect not what the assertions are.

So I asked you this in response, which you have not answered:

If someone were to tell you all about a world they believed in, of things that seemed obviously and completely illogical and unbelievable TO YOU, and they explained how their logic worked to support that world -- would you truly be reveling in their "logic" or rather noticing the illogical foundations they were working from?

In the example above, would you still, as you say, consider the logical form as/more significant than the assertions? Or is this just a formula that works for your own ideas?

[Eodnhoj7]

What I want revealed is what you think logic is if you claim to know what illogic is...I answered my half.

Things that are not real to me are illogical to use as a basis for anything. (I already said this.) Things that ARE real to me enable me to witness, measure, see patterns, and make connections -- and that provides a basis for my logic.

So logic is subject to your own experience?

You said this:

To disagree with the argument because of premises does not disagree with what the logical form is, the logic is how the assertions connect not what the assertions are.

So I asked you this in response, which you have not answered:

If someone were to tell you all about a world they believed in, of things that seemed obviously and completely illogical and unbelievable TO YOU, and they explained how their logic worked to support that world -- would you truly be reveling in their "logic" or rather noticing the illogical foundations they were working from?

I would follow their logic and how the premises are connected...all assertions are illogical on their own terms as well as forms of logic.



In the example above, would you still, as you say, consider the logical form as/more significant than the assertions?
Logic as built upon assertions becomes a more complex assertion.


Or is this just a formula that works for your own ideas?

The formula would have to be self referencing, as in the assertions and formula must reference eachother. Under Christianity the forms and assertions reference eachother through a self maintained loop which is open to further expansion.

Helgelian dialectic references the form of Christian logic and vice versa.

[HexHammer]

That did not answer my question. What about the good within man?

The gods are anthropomorphization of forces that govern man's behavior, they are real only as "spirits" of man with these spirits being stories. Christianity represents a literal anthropormization of divinity.

I have answered that 3 times already but you lack very basic cognitive abilities to comprehend it! Please go to another forum and spew your blatant nonsense!

[Eodnhoj7]

That did not answer my question. What about the good within man?

The gods are anthropomorphization of forces that govern man's behavior, they are real only as "spirits" of man with these spirits being stories. Christianity represents a literal anthropormization of divinity.

I have answered that 3 times already but you lack very basic cognitive abilities to comprehend it! Please go to another forum and spew your blatant nonsense!

Then please just give a straightforward answer to the question as I seem to have read over it.

The question of "what justifies the good in man?"

[HexHammer]

Then please just give a straightforward answer to the question as I seem to have read over it.

The question of "what justifies the good in man?"

Shut up fucking retard!

[Lacewing]

Things that are not real to me are illogical to use as a basis for anything. (I already said this.) Things that ARE real to me enable me to witness, measure, see patterns, and make connections -- and that provides a basis for my logic.

So logic is subject to your own experience?

Sure! As I said...

Personally, I simply don't share your kind of logic because I don't agree with all of the theist components you use. That is not real to me. The logic you use may make perfect sense to reality and life as you know it. Just as the logic I see/use makes sense to me.

Is there always one "right" and "true" kind of logic? Apparently not. We are living in different worlds while sharing the same planet. Fascinating, yes? There may be some ideas of logic we agree on... like the effects of gravity, or seasons, or which way the wind blows. But the fact that some people believe in gods, and some people don't, appears to reflect different sources and uses of logic.

And part of my personal experience includes significant involvement in Christianity.

Do you think your logic IS or IS NOT subject to your own experience?

If someone were to tell you all about a world they believed in, of things that seemed obviously and completely illogical and unbelievable TO YOU, and they explained how their logic worked to support that world -- would you truly be reveling in their "logic" or rather noticing the illogical foundations they were working from?

I would follow their logic and how the premises are connected...all assertions are illogical on their own terms as well as forms of logic.

Why would you do this if their claims seemed obviously and completely illogical and unbelievable to you?

Logic as built upon assertions becomes a more complex assertion.

Wouldn't assertions be built on logic? It seems backward to make assertions and THEN find a way to apply logic to them. Are you trying to rationalize your own style of making assertions?

The formula would have to be self referencing, as in the assertions and formula must reference eachother.

That doesn't make either accurate or logical. People can make up all kinds of insane connections and justifications and spin in circles calling it logic, right?

Under Christianity the forms and assertions reference eachother…

Again, doesn't make it accurate or logical.

...through a self maintained loop

What is the significance of this? Just means it is manipulated/controlled, right? And you could add on "self-affirming", which is self-serving and doesn't prove anything.

...which is open to further expansion.

Really? That's not at all the impression theism gives! Rather, it is a closed circle, rigid and already KNOWN. There is nowhere to expand to, and to suggest such a thing is treated as a threat.

[Skepdick]

Wouldn't assertions be built on logic? It seems backward to make assertions and THEN find a way to apply logic to them. Are you trying to rationalize your own style of making assertions?

It's not backwards. it's how epistemology/science works. The process of rationalizing one's own thinking IS the process of modeling reality.

First we observe the phenomena: apples fall from trees.
Then we speculate a cause: Gravity
Then we write a logical expression which describes what happened: F = G*(m1*m2/r^2)

The above equation is just a formal (comes from "form" - Plato!) model of the apple falling to the ground as a function of the Earth and Apple's mass.

Here is some knowledge:
1. On the meaning of logical rules: syntax vs semantics

2. On the meanings of the logical constants and the justifications of the logical laws

[attofishpi]

You really are in NO position to talk about logic or rational arguments, you are quite simply the stupidest dumb fuck without a clue about logic on this forum

Oh, I think we both know that's not true. You're just spun up because I called you out on being dishonorable and cowardly for the way you insist that others answer your questions, but you won't provide your own answers. It's a truth that you have demonstrated before, as well as now. And yes, your games of avoidance are noticeably childish. It's your crap, not mine.

So which one of us is in avoidance here where I have ANSWERED the first two points of your five...we should all be in awe at the hypocrisy of U. Go ahead, the ball is in your court - explain what is illogical about these first two of your five points.

Illogical beliefs:
1) That a god would have a gender

My belief is that Christ was God incarnate. What is illogical about God having a gender?

2) That human man would be in the god's likeness

God formed himself as a man - as per point 1) In other words, God was quite happy with the design of the human form for itself and therefore formed US in that same form - what is illogical?

[Lacewing]

Wouldn't assertions be built on logic? It seems backward to make assertions and THEN find a way to apply logic to them. Are you trying to rationalize your own style of making assertions?

It's not backwards. it's how epistemology/science works. The process of rationalizing one's own thinking IS the process of modeling reality.

First we observe the phenomena: apples fall from trees.
Then we speculate a cause: Gravity
Then we write a logical expression which describes what happened: F = G*(m1*m2/r^2)

Okay.
How about in the case of claiming there's a god?
Based on what?
It's not observable... it's imagined.
Formulating logic for assertions about something like that is like a scientist adjusting data to fit/meet his desired result, right?

[Lacewing]

So which one of us is in avoidance here where I have ANSWERED the first two points of your five...

The simple task was for you to supply FIVE examples of "logical" beliefs about Christianity. What is so fucking hard about that?

It was NOT to "answer" my points, NOT to play off of my points, but to think and speak for yourself, and you can't even accomplish that.

You're continually blabbing about all that you "know", but AGAIN you act like a fucking idiot, attofishpi, and you can't deliver when it comes down to it.

I'm happy to be done with this exchange and with your dishonest bullshit. So, it's clearly recorded here that you were unable to do a simple task, and you acted like a jackass in trying to avoid it. My work here is done.