The Logic Problem With Theistic Religions

[MineralMan]

The problem begins and ends with the initial premise:

"God Exists," or "Gods Exist"

No evidence of that premise is ever, nor can be, presented.

All other arguments fail, because the initial premise cannot be shown to be true.

Buddhism, of course, is an exception to this, but it is often argued that Buddhism is not really a religion, but a philosophy.

[PJMcK]

1. Not just modern religions

Your point would seem to apply to religions throughout human history.

The beauty of science is that when we discover things, we realized that there doesn't have to be any supernatural force in the universe. Things can exist without the magical intervention of a super-being.

It's less confusing, too.

[MineralMan]

2. Perhaps, although there have been religions, and still are, that

do not have god-like entities at their core. That's why I stipulated Modern religions and provided an exception in Buddhism. Perhaps I should have said "Theistic Religions," instead.

In fact, it's such a good point that I changed the thread title. Thanks!

[Pope George Ringo II]

3. "I don't understand, therefore magic" was never really destined for the logic hall of fame.

Those foundations don't really permit much of a building program. But it must be admitted that some simply spectacular mental acrobatics have been performed getting from point to point within the facade.

[MineralMan]

4. Sure fooled a lot of people, though, didn't it?

[Pope George Ringo II]

7. A person is smart. People are stupid.

It's appalling how much of human history can only be understood through that metric.

[Doodley]

5. What does logic have to do with religion?

[Major Nikon]

6. There's at least two ways that premise typically diverges from logic and reason

The whole god exist/god does not exist premise is a false dilemma. It assumes there's only two options when in fact there are more. One does not need to make a choice at all to challenge either assertion. So it's really just a weak attempt to shift the burden of proof from the one making a claim to the one denying it.

But let's assume for the sake of argument (as some obviously do) that the options here are binary. Which is a more incredible claim? That's a rhetorical question.

But that's not even the only claim that most religionists make. They aren't just making the claim that one or more deities exist. They are making the claim of existence along with creation along with intervention. So it's really three unfalsifiable and incredible claims rolled up into one. Meanwhile the positive atheist only makes one unfalsifiable claim that isn't incredible at all.

I would argue Buddhism is a religion, just one that in some cases doesn't make claim to a deity.

[violetpastille]

8. Yes

Faith is not logic.

There are some people that will keep seeing heaven in a blade of grass and eternity in an hour.

Some people will keep seeing the cellulose and chlorophyll in grass and sixty seconds in an hour.

The future depends on us all getting along and using the very best of both.

[Pendrench]

9. Hi violetpastille - I agree with what you said, and enjoyed how you said it.

Wishing you well and peace

Tim

[violetpastille]

10. Thank goodness!

When I saw someone had responded to my post I thought "Oh no! I'm going to get called out for confusing a blade of grass for a wildflower!"



Wellness and Peace to you, too!

[highplainsdem]

11. Beautifully said...and I love the Blake poem you're alluding to there.

[violetpastille]

12. Thank you!

[Pope George Ringo II]

17. I won't say that approach doesn't work for some people, because obviously they do it.

But it's worth mentioning that there are also people out there who make a decision about faith on faith...and then proceed to invent all sorts of flawed logical constructs in an effort to justify it. I don't think that approach reflects well on their faith or their logic.

[guillaumeb]

21. Very well said.

Some see the garden, others see the design.

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. Buddhism has its fair share of logical issues.

Reincarnation being one of them.

[Major Nikon]

14. Far from the only one

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Yogic_flying

[Act_of_Reparation]

15. Low hanging fruit, but it's still a hoot.

White yuppies are the best thing to ever have happened to the entrepreneurial con man.

[Major Nikon]

16. He was guru to the Beatles until they figured out he was a con artist

But they had a lot to do with why he became so popular and still is today.

[MarvinGardens]

18. There are logical arguments for God.

You have probably heard the first-cause and watchmaker arguments. Of course, these arguments can also be attacked as weak or unsound, but they are attempts to prove the existence of a creator using logic. Problem is, these arguments don't give us Christianity or the Bible, nor any other religious dogma. And, you are more likely to hear them in a college philosophy class than in church. So your thread title stands.

[MineralMan]

19. I've seen those arguments. They fail to hold, logically.

Like the logic regarding the existence of unseen deities, they fail at their initial premises, which also lack evidence.

There is zero evidence that everything that exists is caused by something.
There is also zero evidence that existence requires a creator.

Those are the initial premises of the arguments, but have no evidence of being true.

It is beginning to look like our universe is simply an artifact of something it is only part of. And who created the creator is the question to ask regarding the watchmaker argument. The answer to both is "I don't know." No evidence.

Without evidence for the initial premise, the logic fails if one does not accept a premise that has no evidence of being factual.

[guillaumeb]

20. A logical fallacy is on exhibit here.

Faith, being unprovable, needs a belief.

[MineralMan]

22. Then I also have no faith in imaginary things.

Faith has nothing to do with logic.