Logic - Religion's mortal enemy

[The Doctor]

Before we get started – no points here for those who play logical fallacy bingo, and apologies for another thread on religion

So then – following a challenge from El Empty, I’ll give some examples of pathetic theistic logic. First up:

Scientists have proven that the universe had a beginning, hence god

Ok, first of all,

. Secondly – that the universe had a beginning is proof only that it had a beginning, it does not provide proof for god. You may want to claim that science has not provided an explanation for the big bang – but I’d refer you back to Dr. Krauss’ lecture and also say this – until the early 1900’s and Einstein, science had not provided an explanation for the existence of gravity. This doesn't mean that 100 years ago the correct stance would have been to say “God did it†for gravity – just as it isn't now for the beginning of the universe.

Linking to that:

For the universe to exist, it had to have a causer, hence god

The argument of cause and effect is fallacious since it relies on cause and effect, which is a temporal property and so would not exist prior to time. The big bang is responsible for the start of space-time, hence cause and effect cannot have existed before it and so the first causer argument falls flat on its face.

This usually also leads into special pleading, when asked what caused God – to which the reply is “God has always existedâ€. This is A) a rather prominent logical fallacy and B) easily challenged by a slight quote mine from Carl Sagan: “In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?â€

Einstein professed to believing in a God, he’s smarter than any of us so God is a sensible conclusion

And so rears “Argument from Authorityâ€, as well as a nice little dose of “False Attributionâ€. Indeed Einstein did believe in a god, but that god was Spinoza’s god, better known as nature. Einstein’s “God†was nature, not the god of any organised religion: I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

Further, Einstein denied belief in a personal god as in most religions – going as far as to say that the only aspect of him that could be considered religious would be his admiration for the world as science explains it: I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Several billion people believe in a god, are you saying they’re all wrong?

A lovely move into “Argument ad populum†– the number of people to believe in something does not make a jot of difference as to whether that thing exists. If the entire world was to wake up tomorrow and believe a magic dragon lived in my pancreas, that would not mean that one did.

But science doesn't know everything, who’s to say that what you don’t know isn't the work of god?

Well known as the “God of the Gapsâ€, this utilises “Argument e Silentio†– An argument that relies on the absence of evidence from the other side, rather than evidence of their point. The issue with your god residing in gaps is that those gaps in our knowledge get filled with the naturalistic explanations, driving your god further and further towards irrelevance. While evidence may be absent at the time, it isn't always going to remain as such and is an incredibly shoddy grounding for an argument.

But atheists have never disproven god

Mostly because we don’t need to, welcome to Burden of Proof. Those who make the positive claim have the onus to prove their claim, the opposing side are perfectly right to dismiss your claim until proof is provided and, as yet, that proof still hasn't been provided. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but not even decent evidence has been put forth.

You can’t see air, but it’s there, why can the same not be true of god?

As a student of analytical chemistry, this one amuses me because while air may not be visible to the eye, it is not some mystical thing that lies out of our grasp – indeed every car in France by law must contain an object capable of detecting it – the alcosensor machine known as the breathalyser. We can not only detect air, we can measure it’s chemical make-up to extreme precision through use of objects such as Mass Spectrometers. Neither is true of God.

You deny god now but when you get to your deathbed you’ll think otherwise

A rehashing of the deeply tedious “No atheists in foxholes†idea - both incorrect, plenty of people have approached death with no change in their lack of belief, and also irrelevant to the existence of a god. All this serves to suggest is that people are afraid of death, explainable by nature – that lies as nothing more but testament to the minds ability to delude itself for the sake of comfort.

If there’s no god, explain the bible/qur'an/Torah…

If harry potter doesn't exist, who wrote the harry potter series?

A person or group of people, pure and simple. Attributing it’s authorship to god doesn't mean god either exists or wrote it, just as the quote attributed to Voltaire “I don’t agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it†doesn't mean Voltaire said anything of the sort (indeed it was actually a line from the author of a biography of Voltaire).

I could also cover the science in holy texts (incorrect), misunderstandings of science and a number of other things, but lets finish with that.

[ADK]

I'm sure you'll convert alot of religious fundamentalists with that.

[FoxyPV]

Why are you trying to argue with religious people?

Just bang your head off a wall. It will be less painful.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Why are you trying to argue with religious people?

Just bang your head off a wall. It will be less painful.

Or you could try arguing with atheists.

[leicsmac]

[ADK]

The whole point of faith is it's completely illogical. You cannot disprove faith with science. No matter how much you know there is always a faith arguement.

[skinnydipper]

The whole point of faith is it's completely illogical. You cannot disprove faith with science. No matter how much you know there is always a faith arguement.

Faith is logical.

It's a comfort blanket.

[Guest]

Science is logical.

It's a comfort blanket.

[Guest ttfn]

And this week's smug cvnt of the year award for services to starting an argument in an empty room goes to...

[Kitchandro]

I wish people wouldn't confuse religion with believing in God.

The idea of organised religion to me is retarded but only an idiot would say they are sure there is no God.

It's a bit sad you've written all that nerdy stuff about logic vs religion when actually, all the 'logic' in the world wont be any evidence to disprove the existence of God.

[skinnydipper]

I've posted bollox

[Carl the Llama]

I wish people wouldn't confuse religion with believing in God.

The idea of organised religion to me is retarded but only an idiot would say they are sure there is no God.

It's a bit sad you've written all that nerdy stuff about logic vs religion when actually, all the 'logic' in the world wont be any evidence to disprove the existence of God.

I actually agree with you on this. I feel like people who devote their lives to church going are misguided and brainwashed, but just because the 'tools of God' are just that, tools, doesn't mean that there isn't some 'thing'/'being' beyond our current comprehension. That's the view I'll keep until there is concrete proof either way.

[The Doctor]

And this week's smug cvnt of the year award for services to starting an argument in an empty room goes to...

El Empty? After all, as I said he set the challenge with the intent of then proving me wrong. I'll admit the thread title was chosen with the express intent of pissing him off, but the rest of it is just providing what he asked for.

Oh, and how can an "of the year award" be weekly?

I wish people wouldn't confuse religion with believing in God.

The idea of organised religion to me is retarded but only an idiot would say they are sure there is no God.

It's a bit sad you've written all that nerdy stuff about logic vs religion when actually, all the 'logic' in the world wont be any evidence to disprove the existence of God.

Only because of the way the concept of a god has been set up - so that it is a supernatural entity, not detectable by natural methods, something that can only be part of faith. Which, incidentally, makes it unfalsifiable and so well out of the realms of science & reason and, conveniently enough, impossible to disprove. Nevertheless, all logic goes against it - it relies solely on faith (the least deserving of the so-called virtues) which is no justification for an idea to continue whatsoever.

[ousefox]

I wish people wouldn't confuse religion with believing in God.

The idea of organised religion to me is retarded but only an idiot would say they are sure there is no God.

It's a bit sad you've written all that nerdy stuff about logic vs religion when actually, all the 'logic' in the world wont be any evidence to disprove the existence of God.

or ghosts, or invisible monsters. Pretty sure you wouldn't be labelled an idiot for saying you're sure they don't exist..

[skinnydipper]

Science doesn't disprove there being a god

Not sure I understand the purpose of the thread unless it's just to piss Empty off ?

[Carl the Llama]

or ghosts, or invisible monsters. Pretty sure you'd be labelled an idiot for saying you're sure they don't exist..

Your self-righteous sarcasm does you no favours when you use it to make a point which has nothing to do with the (as yet) unknowable catalyst for all that is.

[Kitchandro]

Only because of the way the concept of a god has been set up - so that it is a supernatural entity, not detectable by natural methods, something that can only be part of faith. Which, incidentally, makes it unfalsifiable and so well out of the realms of science & reason and, conveniently enough, impossible to disprove. Nevertheless, all logic goes against it - it relies solely on faith (the least deserving of the so-called virtues) which is no justification for an idea to continue whatsoever.

But surely, as a man of logic, you are smart enough to realise that the existence of God is entirely possible. The logic being that humans, no matter how clever they are, are still humans.

That is justification in itself, don't fall into the trap of thinking that humans know everything. Pretty much everything we consider facts are in fact just theories which have been proved beyond reasonable doubt anyway. There are things, as BoxingFoxes has said above, that are beyond human comprehension. Truly intelligent people know this and aren't arrogant enough to think that their species is all-knowing.

[Kitchandro]

or ghosts, or invisible monsters. Pretty sure you wouldn't be labelled an idiot for saying you're sure they don't exist..

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean you're not an idiot.

You forgot aliens as well.

[21st Century Fox]

As an aside, someone I used to go to uni with was live tweeting from a Christian Media conference the other day. One of the lectures he was tweeting about was how the Muamba story was affirmation of the power of pray.

[ousefox]

Your self-righteous sarcasm does you no favours when you use it to make a point which has nothing to do with the (as yet) unknowable catalyst for all that is.

Okaay.... there is no good evidence to suggest that it is more likely that there is a god than ghosts and monsters etc..

And the point I was making was that you'd be seen as an idiot for thinking they exist. Don't see much difference myself

[The Doctor]

But surely, as a man of logic, you are smart enough to realise that the existence of God is entirely possible. The logic being that humans, no matter how clever they are, are still humans.

That is justification in itself, don't fall into the trap of thinking that humans know everything. Pretty much everything we consider facts are in fact just theories which have been proved beyond reasonable doubt anyway. There are things, as BoxingFoxes has said above, that are beyond human comprehension. Truly intelligent people know this and aren't arrogant enough to think that their species is all-knowing.

It's possible yes, but it's a completely illogical and irrational position to take so long as there's no evidence.

Humans not knowing everything is not justification for an idea with no supporting evidence - particularly if that idea has been around for several millennia and still not produced any form of evidence.

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean you're not an idiot.

You forgot aliens as well.

I wouldn't say aliens is comparable - if you're going by ET/little green men idea then yes, but aliens would just be life from another planet, and with the size of the universe the probability of that existing is very close to 1.

[Asha]

Sorry, but fvck off Al, there is a God.

Wes Morgan.

[BoneDog]

Sorry about that, it's my fault!

No hang on, f*&k it, it's LargeAl's fault for mentioning religion and logic in a derogatory way for the 10th time in 6 weeks (yes LargeAl you were right, my 50% estimate that I said to you earlier was an eggsageration!).

I'll take half the blame. I did promise myself the other month not to get involved in religious waffle on here but for some reason earlier on I did bite.

'Spose I'd better go back and read the first post

[Kitchandro]

It's possible yes, but it's a completely illogical and irrational position to take so long as there's no evidence.

Humans not knowing everything is not justification for an idea with no supporting evidence - particularly if that idea has been around for several millennia and still not produced any form of evidence.

I disagree. It's not justification for saying something is definitely true, but it's exactly the justification for having ideas. Not everything is black and white. What you think you know about the universe and life is really only your perception of it as a human. The real truths may be far more unbelieveable than you can imagine.

How is it irrational to accept that we actually know very little about the universe and life?

There doesn't need to be any evidence for it, if there is a God, he's not necessariliy leaving clues to make himself be believed in. Maybe he (or she, or it I suppose) doesn't give a shit what people think. If there is a God, they're most probably smarter than you and I, and if they didn't want to make it obvious they existed, you wouldn't have any real evidence because they'd make it that way.

Thousands of years may well be a very short space of time in the scheme of things, why do you presume that's a significant amount of time for the human race to have provided sufficient evidence?

I'd wager there are many things science hasn't proved yet but are still true. Maybe they will be proved in the future. It's naive to think something's more likely to be untrue when there's no real evidence to prove or disprove it.

I don't see what evidence has to do with it, even the most committed believer would admit there's no real scientific evidence. But that isn't the point is it? You can't just dismiss something because you can't comprehend it or think it farfetched.

[Kitchandro]

I wouldn't say aliens is comparable - if you're going by ET/little green men idea then yes, but aliens would just be life from another planet, and with the size of the universe the probability of that existing is very close to 1.

So with the size of the universe being so big surely it's also possible for something else to exist that we haven't proved yet? Maybe something more powerful and older than ourselves?

Besides, lets say this God created the universe, what makes you think they'd be in the actual universe? What's the beyond the universe?