You missed a past point completely, you cannot mix logic and religion. It will not pan out in either one's favor. It all lies in faith. You cannot mix those two together, that is what RiboflavinBob's major point was.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
How Can Anyone Believe in God?
- Thread starter RDK
- Start date
- Status
I also want to point out that he explained a different reason why it is "reasonable" to believe in God besides him being proven to be real. He stated that it gives people's lives meaning, happiness, and hope for an even better afterlife.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Which is irrelevant to the thread.
That's not "reasonable". That's useful, reasonable requires logical proof, useful doesn't.
arrowhead
Smash Ace
it also allows people to "justify" infringing on other peoples' rights and impede scientific advancement
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Also totally irrelevant.
Bring that to a "is religion a positive or negative in human development" thread.
Not logical proof but just logic. It is logical that a person would want to believe in God because of the reasons I stated earlier.
arrowhead
Smash Ace
"reasonable" has too broad of a definition. "logical" may be a better word.
there is no logical reason to believe in any god
The fact that it gives people happiness and gets them through the day with all the violence in the world seems to be a pretty "logical" reason. Even if He doesn't exist, if it gives people hope then that is reason enough.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
It is logical that a person would WANT to believe in God, but that's not the topic. The topic is whether it's logical actually believe in God, which does require logical proof.
For that reason, your suggestion that there is no logical reason to believe, but plenty to want to believe, is tantamount to a concession.
Pragmatic use is not a logical reason to believe something, otherwise Tai Chi would be logical.
Only proof of existence suffices.
I didn't mean to say want to believe that was poor word choice
I don't see why you think proof of existence is the only reason for someone to believe in something. Proving that it exists only justifies the belief
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
But it does logically reflect your argument.
Your argument for believing in God is because it is useful, which doesn't satisfy the requirement for belief in something.
For existential arguments, you need an observation.
So, still, plenty of reasons to want to believe in God, but no logical reason to believe.
I am going to repeat because you don't appear to have seen my last edit: I don't see why you think proof of existence is the only reason for someone to believe in something. Proving that it exists only justifies the belief. You don't need observation to believe in something.
arrowhead
Smash Ace
you need to be able to observe something to LOGICALLY believe it exists
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
However to logically believe it exists, you do have to observe it.
It must be justified in order for it to be logical.
riboflavinbob
Smash Apprentice
I really thought that I would never be returning to this thread, but I guess I just HAD to see how you guys are doing. And what do I see? Some guy saying:
"However to logically believe it exists, you do have to observe it."
YOU, have completely missed the point of religion and faith. You don't need have "logical reason" or "proof" to believe. BELIEVE. How many times do I have to say it. It has nothing to do with "logical reason". That's why religion is so great. If logic says "You have a horrible life, just die" you can still believe "There's still time for change, let's look at tommorow in a positive way" (This viewpoint = happiness and a possible motivation to work for a better tommorow). Yes, it is "illogical", but that's what religion is about. Your quote contradicts itself by saying "To logically believe". Belief is not always based on logic. The point of religion is that it doesn't need any sort of absolute "justification".
The same thing goes for you, arrowhead.
You don't need "Logical conclusions based on hypothesis and observations" to believe something.
That's all I have to say.
arrowhead
Smash Ace
logic doesn't say things lie "you have a horrible life, just die." logic isn't negative, nor is it opinionated in any way. if someone thinks "i should die", that's not logic telling the person he's worthless, it's the person. religion is just an unnecessary system of lies to get people to believe what the authorities want them to believe. it started as a way to control people through explanations, but we have science now.
it isn't a contradiction. belief can still be based on logic. science can never really prove anything but as more evidence points toward an explanation the more it's believable.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Logically, you do.
Any other justification is patently irrelevant to the thread.
Whether it's useful is an entirely different matter, as I pointed out several times before.
You're in the wrong thread, create a thread questioning whether believing in God is useful, and your argument will be legitimate. Here it's a mere Red Herring.
riboflavinbob
Smash Apprentice
Well it's obvious that you still can't understand that logic and belief are different things. What I stated was not wether it is useful or not, but the purpose of belief. And it is very clear that you are misunderstanding my post, into that i'm saying "logic = misery". I'm saying that logic, depending on the situation can lead to negativity (in my example a negative situation) Religion may make it into a positive situation, regardless of the fact that (in that situation) logic means negativity.
Also, to arrowhead, you say "belief can still be based on logic" But belief can exist independent of logic. One can believe there is a teapot orbiting in space, and have no evidence to support it. Yes, one can BELIEVE. This person's beliefis that there is a teapot orbiting in space. Belief can be based on logic, but it is not necessary. Can anyone possibly "logically believe" there is a teapot orbiting in space? (logic meaning it is supported by physical evidence) No. But someone can believe.
My post was on topic (following the norm of the preceding posts' topics, or as you said, topics which emerged as logical next steps in this debate) was indeed on topic. It was misunderstood as a post saying "God is very useful in hard times". I'm sorry for my ambiguity. The title of this thread is "How Can Anyone Believe in God?" This question has already been answered several times in this thread.
What's wrong is that you are still looking at belief and religion as something humans are able to look at logically. Religion is not logical, the three of us know that, as atheists. And as atheists, we should know that what is not logical, or self contradictory if looked at from a logical standpoint (considering logical, scientific reasoning), is a belief. And a belief, subjective to the person believing, is only a belief.
Also, to arrowhead, you say "belief can still be based on logic" But belief can exist independent of logic. One can believe there is a teapot orbiting in space, and have no evidence to support it. Yes, one can BELIEVE. This person's beliefis that there is a teapot orbiting in space. Belief can be based on logic, but it is not necessary. Can anyone possibly "logically believe" there is a teapot orbiting in space? (logic meaning it is supported by physical evidence) No. But someone can believe.
My post was on topic (following the norm of the preceding posts' topics, or as you said, topics which emerged as logical next steps in this debate) was indeed on topic. It was misunderstood as a post saying "God is very useful in hard times". I'm sorry for my ambiguity. The title of this thread is "How Can Anyone Believe in God?" This question has already been answered several times in this thread.
What's wrong is that you are still looking at belief and religion as something humans are able to look at logically. Religion is not logical, the three of us know that, as atheists. And as atheists, we should know that what is not logical, or self contradictory if looked at from a logical standpoint (considering logical, scientific reasoning), is a belief. And a belief, subjective to the person believing, is only a belief.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
No, I do...
It should've been obvious from the fact that I was clearly differentiation them.
Again, this topic's discussion is whether belief in God is logical to hold.
The fact that they are different things is self-evident, but it relates in no way to the topic in hand.
But it was clarified in the opening post (albeit in a roundabout way) to a discussion as to whether belief in God had a logical grounding.
The previous tangents were related to discussions of specific evidence or lack thereof for God. The "does reality exist?" tangent for example, came up in relation to evidence opposing God assuming that reality exists.
This on the other hand, simply attempts to redefine the thread itself, as a question of whether beliefs can exist. It's not. This thread's question is whether a specific subset of beliefs have logical grounding.
Are you prepared to argue that this subset of beliefs do have logical grounding?
Whoever said I'm an atheist?
What I am saying here does not prove or disprove ANY position on the debate. I'm merely pointing out that you're redefining the question up for debate in order to come to a particular conclusion.
I am calling the question of the debate, "does belief in God have logical grounding?", if you're not prepared to answer that, create a thread that deals with the question you're bringing up.
Don't pretend that the answer to your question bears any relevance to the question of this thread.
arrowhead
Smash Ace
logic never leads to negativity by itself. it's the person's interpretation that leads to negativity.
it was a response to you saying the phrase "to logically believe" is contradictory. i already know belief can exist independent of logic
nobody is going to be able to answer that with a yes
riboflavinbob
Smash Apprentice
I think I may have finally understood what the point of this thread is. I've been thinking too hard. I've been wrong this whole time. I really did get off topic, by alot. Sorry for assuming you're atheist. And arrowhead too... if he's not.
But...
You say "does belief in God have logical grounding?"
-Meaning "is it smart to believe in god?"
and
"Again, this topic's discussion is whether belief in God is logical to hold."
-Meaning "we are to discuss wether it is smart to believe in god"
So the ultimate topic of discussion is: Who's opinion is better and smarter?
I understand now. This thread is one where there are only people who beat their chests with pride saying, "my opinion is better than yours, i'm smarter than you". You said that's the topic of discussion yourself, you just twisted your words a little. I was completely off topic. Hmm... I guess that's the point of the Debate Hall. What am I doing here then?
Ha... I see now. Really, don't bother replying. I was wrong about the topic. I admit it. I was arguing for a side that doesn't exist in this topic, there's no gray between the black and white. It's all clear now.
Edit: One final thing @ arrowhead. If you took anything out of these past few pages (specifically to p 109) you should know that believing in God doesn't require evidence, and that needing evidence should not even be considered if one is to follow a religion, and if one truly needs some sort of evidence to follow a religion, then that person has gone against that religion (abrahamic religions in this case) just by wanting evidence and not trusting the word of God.
But speaking of your interpretation of adumbrodeus' suggestion:
There is no physical evidence of god, we should not use logic to assume in his existence.
That's why there are atheists. People who choose to stick to logical, earthly values.
But it's a belief. It doesn't matter wether or not there is evidence. A belief will always assume that one thing is true, even if logical evidence is put against it.
Should we believe in god based on solid, physical evidence? No. Because if we were to look at god from a logical, physical standpoint, God himself would be a paradox. Even if there was evidence (noah's ark...etc) to prove his existence, God would not be God.
Which I'm sure you already know, so that brings us back to my interpretation of adumbrodeus' suggestion of what the topic is.
arrowhead
Smash Ace
i'm atheist
but no, adumbrodeus means "given the amount of evidence supporting the existence of god, should we believe one (or more) exists?"
but no, adumbrodeus means "given the amount of evidence supporting the existence of god, should we believe one (or more) exists?"
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
It's a vulgar way to put it, but that's what debate is about, separating poor opinions from good ones within the context of the question provided.
Are we saying "we're smarter", not really, not here. To a degree it's an intellectual contest, but only between individuals and the idea of debates like this are to attract the strongest proponents of each side so it's no longer about who's smarter. Personal accomplishment is irrelevant in this format.
It's about what side is inherently better, it's about solving the questions of the day.
If you don't like it, do you have a better way of dealing with intellectual questions?
JediKnightLuigi
Smash Apprentice
I think what riboflavinbob is saying is no one is listening to each other's side. People come here and don't pay careful attention to arguements laid out by their opposing opinion; instead, the come here and think "This person believes this, which I don't: how can I disprove that with my beliefs?"
Rather, the take to the other side should be "This person believes this, which I don't: how can I get in his shoes and try to understand why he would think like that?"
Rather, the take to the other side should be "This person believes this, which I don't: how can I get in his shoes and try to understand why he would think like that?"
riboflavinbob
Smash Apprentice
Well, going against what I said before, I did read your reply. Heh...
And after reading it, I would like to ask anyone reading this post:
What has this current method of debate accomplished? What questions were solved?
(in this thread, obviously)
"Attracting the strongest proponents of each side" literally means (on the topic of religion that is): Who's opinion (yes, opinion. religious topics can't be looked at with a simple right and wrong, because beliefs are opinions) has "smarter" reasons?
Asking wether or not God exists is not an intellectual question. The answer is subjective. A definite conclusion will never come up. (Unless everyone has the same opinion)
If this is a simple "intellectual contest" then I'd like to thank you for clearing that up for me.
Who am I, to bring up the gray, when this argument (all along) was between the black and the white? I have no place on this thread, that has been made clear to me. I must be either for or against God. Because in this thread, religion is treated as a scientific, conclusive subject.
@ arrowhead... I will say this one last time. God is a belief. Beliefs are opinions. Opinions are subjective.
We can't discuss religion in a logical manner because the subject itself, defies logic. We cannot create logical arguments for or against something that is beyond logic.
What I mean is, we can't debate religion with arguments concerned with the rationality and the logic behind religion. This is why I felt I had to bring up the gray, because I didn't know that the debaters of this thread saw the subject as something to be approached with arguments concerning logic of it all. You have explained to me very well the nature of discussion in this thread.
Again, thank you for clearing that up for me. Please continue as you were before my obnoxious entry.
JediKnightLuigi
Smash Apprentice
^A regular Jonathan Swift-ism there, right at the end! 
Seriously, I applaud that arguement.
The intellect of men will never discern an outcome to this thread's question. And if that isn't *sad* enough to make you pursue an answer in a deity, I don't know what is.
Seriously, I applaud that arguement.
The intellect of men will never discern an outcome to this thread's question. And if that isn't *sad* enough to make you pursue an answer in a deity, I don't know what is.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Entirely depends on the issue.
With a question as simple as "do horses exist" this method deals with it simply and effectively.
Ultimately one side either is, or will be better equipped with facts and logic, because it is the better side. Granted, it might not be what seem to be the two initial sides in a given argument.
Convincing because of logic, not because of better oration.
Existential questions can never be subjective because the answers are mutually exclusive. Either black swans exist or they don't. Either unicorns exist or they don't.
As I said, it has elements on the macro scale, but the entire point of a wide debate is to eliminate that "intellectual contest" and make it about which view is actually better.
Actually it was the fact that you came out for God existence, but in a manner that didn't pertain to the question of the question at hand.
Really the point is that you're acting like we CAN'T discuss this in a logical manner. If it is truly a subjective topic, then don't our subjective views of logic in reguards to this count for anything?
So, since the topic specified this type of environment, how can we accept a non-logical framework for debating the topic?
arrowhead
Smash Ace
the answer is not subjective at all. god either exists or it doesn't.
well that's what the subject of the debate is: whether it's logical to believe in god or not
Its unbelievable how stubborn you two are! He is not even debating for either side and you continue to try to counter his points! We are just getting completely off topic to clear up the very point of this thread! If it is bothering everyone so much, why not ask the person who started it?
Besides he has a point. This thread will never have an answer unless everyone becomes atheist or something happens to make everyone become either a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.
Besides he has a point. This thread will never have an answer unless everyone becomes atheist or something happens to make everyone become either a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.
arrowhead
Smash Ace
M.K
Level 55
I have to disagree with this statement. You look down a 60-foot cliff. You see jagged rocks. Logically, you jump, and you die. Illogically, you jump, and start flying like a bird.
For the topic, believing in something is somebody's choice, therefore an opinion on their hands. If it affects you that someone has confided in themselves to a higher being, then you might believe some other ideology.
Here is a question to ask yourself:
"Do you believe in God?"
Answers:
Yes: I BELIEVE in God.
No: I BELIEVE there isn't a God.
SEE? It is the same thing to believe or not believe, just through the human language and series' of double negatives.
I'm going to be perfectly honest. I don't get this reply...
But see meta-kirby gets it...
arrowhead
Smash Ace
logic will tell you that you'll die. YOU are the one that says "oh cool" or "that's bad".
not the semantics debate AGAIN!
M.K
Level 55
Very true on the first part, I didn't think of it like that. Touche!
And...sorry, this is one of my first times in this thread. I'm sorry if I struck a bad nerve
Tim_The_Enchanter
Smash Ace
Logic is subjective. Religion cannot be analyzed logically because "logic" is simple things that one sees true. If you ask an evangelist to explain the logic behind god, they will claim that the bible proves god's existence and purpose. To a person who may not believe in god, this seems completely illogical.
I personally see myself as an agnostic, I do not believe any of the organized, established religion's claims to god because they all display contradictions or things I disagree with. If someone wants to open a topic about specific contradictions in Christianity, I will be happy to participate in it.
First off, nice name, lol. I saw the username, and I was like "Oh, he'd better have a pic of Tim as his avatar!" And then you did, so kudos. 
Logic is not subjective. It is a rigorous and objective methodology used to infer statements. The word "logic" is often misused, however, to try to mean essentially "what seems right to someone". But this is not logic in any form. It's just a poor attempt at making irrational assumptions seem less absurd.
Here you go. There already is one.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
That's not logic. Logic is a form of mathmatics. What you mentioned here, that the evangelical used, is not logic at all.
It is something some people pretend is logic.
PS. I'm with Alt4Warrior on the Username. Now all we need is a most fowl-tempered rodent for you to warn us about.
marthanoob
Smash Journeyman
Which is why true philosophers have learned to use mathematics *ahem* Descartes *ahem*.
Tim_The_Enchanter
Smash Ace
That's not logic. Logic is a form of mathmatics. What you mentioned here, that the evangelical used, is not logic at all.
It is something some people pretend is logic.
PS. I'm with Alt4Warrior on the Username. Now all we need is a most fowl-tempered rodent for you to warn us about.[/QUOTE
Tim: Well, that's no ordinary rabbit. That's the most foul,
cruel, and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on.
ROBIN: You tit! I soiled my armor I was so scared!
Your turn
Also, thanks AltF4 for the link.
- Status