Philosophy Now Forum

Aristotle, the founder of Logic, talked about the First Cause and the Unmoved Mover.
Godel, the second greatest logician ever, even formulated a logical proof of the existence of God.

Who says believing in God is not logical?

skakos wrote:Aristotle, the founder of Logic, talked about the First Cause and the Unmoved Mover.
Godel, the second greatest logician ever, even formulated a logical proof of the existence of God.

Who says believing in God is not logical?

True, but because something is logically possible does not mean that it is actually possible. Although the existence of God could be both logically possible and actually possible.

The first example would be a cosmological argument while the latter would be an ontological type of argument. Both arguments exhibit a specific type of logic.

2% of the worlds religion is atheism (CIA worldfactbook) and atheistic 'evolution' is a fringe myth.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolut ... esign.aspx

Creation is the default position (before someone gets brainwashed at school).

jinx wrote:2% of the worlds religion is atheism (CIA worldfactbook) and atheistic 'evolution' is a fringe myth.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolut ... esign.aspx

Creation is the default position (before someone gets brainwashed at school).

Does this have anything to do with ontological and cosmological arguments?

I am not familiar with them.

jinx wrote:I am not familiar with them.

Basically an ontological argument beings with a self evident axiom. From this axiom one develops a logical argument for the existence of God. An example of an ontological axiom could be (although not a very good one off the top of my head) that the idea of God necessarily contains the idea of existence. From this starting point we might be able to develop through a deductive process the proof that God exists

Basically a cosmological argument postulates that if we trace causation back far enough we must eventually get to a very first cause. This is what Aristotle refers to as some sort of unmoved mover. In other words, we could argue that causation must of been caused by something that was not caused itself.

There have been may different formulations of ontological arguments over the centuries, but they have largely fallen out of favour.

Ah k yeh. If someone grows up in the bush, away from all evolutionary biology propaganda (all tv, no school system, no newspapers, no Dawkins's) they are not going to go 'Wow 13.75 billion years ago there was a big bang, then 4.5 billion years ago life came from non living matter, then all life that is and ever was shares a common ancestor with a fish'. No hence creation is the default position.

Not just logic.

Faith.

jinx wrote:Ah k yeh. If someone grows up in the bush, away from all evolutionary biology propaganda (all tv, no school system, no newspapers, no Dawkins's) they are not going to go 'Wow 13.75 billion years ago there was a big bang, then 4.5 billion years ago life came from non living matter, then all life that is and ever was shares a common ancestor with a fish'. No hence creation is the default position.

Probably worth keeping in mind that we are talking about three different branches of science here.

Abiogenesis and evolution address different subject matter. Evolution doesn't say anything about the origins of life. The Big Bang theory on the other hand is cosmology. Supported in many cases by theoretical physics.

reasonvemotion wrote:Not just logic.

Faith.

Yes, it is definitely faith and belief.

Gingko

Who says believing in God is not logical?

So i am addressing this with the before comment. Again creation is the default position until a kid goes to school and gets brainwashed.

There are logical arguments for belief in a creative being, but is this God of the logicians the God most believers believe in? People have a tendency to believe what those around them believe. Traditionally they share a religion ascribing moral values to a god or gods. This acts as a social bond and can provide a common moral framework for people to live by. Belief in God is a cultural phenomenon. I suspect anthropology and sociology would be disciplines better equipped than logic to understand such a phenomenon.

The so called, "default position" is not relevant to science. As far as the kids are concerned they can do science in science classes and religion in theology or philosophy classes. The default position is an argument from ad ignorantiam. The lack of evidence for evolution does not prove evolution false.

skakos wrote:Aristotle, the founder of Logic, talked about the First Cause and the Unmoved Mover.
Godel, the second greatest logician ever, even formulated a logical proof of the existence of God.

Who says believing in God is not logical?

When you comprehend panentheism you comprehend that God IS logic.

reasonvemotion wrote:Not just logic.

Faith.

But Logic is based on specific AXIOMS.
And axioms are derived from... nowhere based on... faith...