attofishpi wrote: thedoc wrote:
There is your mistake, you're trying to apply "logic" to a religious question, it just doesn't work. Religion is based on belief and faith, not logic.
I disagree. If one knew God exists one must intelligently apply logic to understand how and\or why. Or does knowing God exists negate religion..
Having belief and faith still requires a certain amount of logic, otherwise one is little more than an idiot.
There is a point here I would like to address, that of proof destroying faith. I have often heard that one can only "believe" in what one does not know for sure, and that proof will destroy belief and faith. I disagree, I can believe that something is true whether it has been proven or not, and I can have just as much faith in that truth, with or without proof. Attofishpi, I know that this point was not part of your post but it seemed relevant. I agree that many of the conclusions about religion are based on logically structured arguments, but much in religion is expected to be accepted on faith alone, and basing conclusions on a faith based premise is not logical, at least not in my understanding of logic. I do have some grounding in logical arguments, and I am familiar with the possibilities, sound premises - sound conclusion, unsound premises - unsound conclusion, unsound premises - sound conclusion (a possibility) and I understand that there may be other permutations. I will reiterate one point here, I said religion is not "Based"
on logic, and in this I believe it is true that most religion is based on faith in that which cannot be proven, conclusions derived from these faith based premises may be logically structured, but the basic premises are based on belief and faith.