Logical proof of god.

Post Reply New Topic

That's pretty much it. It's as if the person is saying, "If the argument is logically constructed, then it must be true." This completely disregards the fact that a logically-constructed argument must also be based on provable facts, or at least on valid premises.

But we're talking religion here, so logic does not apply!

Oh ok I see what you're getting at now. I agree with that.

loool true but it's not that it's illogical to believe in the God, it's that religion doesn't even follow its own logic.

And that is why I say that belief in God is unreasonable!

If every believer could be reasonable 100% of the time, there would be no more believers.

I've just read through the first ~10% of this and haven't found it disagreeable at all, which is peculiar. I've noticed some oddities about it, but it is clearly one of the most rational "holy texts" I've ever read. I find the concept that god failed at something to be intriguing, implying he is not perfect, and neither is man, he is just closer to being so. Although he also seems to be mighty haughty. Although If I where an immensely powerful entity and "gifted" mankind as this text describes, and they broke our accord, I might be equally pissed, I suppose. That too, while peculiar for a holy text, is mighty rational in a strange sense...I'll likely enjoy reading this take on god more when time permits.

The video isn't convincing enough, but it is the best argument for god I can find. Muslims generally accept that believing in God has to be a logical decision. Their logic may be as useful as a chocolate tea pot but its a start.

^Its certainly logical when the alternative is death/alienation

"I've just read through the first ~10% of this and haven't found it disagreeable at all, which is peculiar."

I've been through the manuscript now several times and it just gets better. I found it very useful to printout the manuscript and especially the chapter titles which provide a very helpful framework. I cannot but recommend it to anyone interested in the God question. Who ever wrote this manuscript could not have assembled so much material except from a position of understanding that goes way outside any theology I've ever come across.

A note about reason and logic.

I tend to think that logic is greatly over stated. If it was all that some like to 'believe' it is, then humanity would hold the key to all knowledge but obviously does not. Thus logic and any reason which follows after it is contained within limits. Unitil discovery interceeds. Discovery is always unique in that it paves the way for new knowledge and it provides it's own logic that when fully demonstrated, cannot be other than accepted as fact.

Consider the search for an AIDs vaccine. The laboratory who finally cracks this nut will have demonstrated an insight or 'logic' others were unable to comprehend. Thus new logic is established.

It appears that this same change of paradigm, founded upon the discovery of a single insight, will now effect the God debate and the implications defy imagination for both religious, atheist and anything in between!

Okay, I've downloaded it. I'm not expecting much from "The Final Freedoms" so far - ghastly design of website, rambling prologue that doesn't explain or even sell the pitch and Mr Spellchecker is not their friend (or they would have picked up on the difference between "ensure" and "insure").

But I'll give it a go...

logic is a concept to denote consistent relations, nothing more.

there is however no other alternative that i know of, what would you use instead?

I'm with you on this one...

In relation to religion all logic can do is show that it's reasonable to, for example, believe in God, that one religion might make better sense over another, and so forth. I tend to think of it as a process of arriving at validity and truth and testing truth claims.

I have a problem with anyone who claims that logic is insufficient for making decisions regarding the handling of truth, e.g. saying that it is "overstated." There cannot be any "new logic." All logical decisions are roughly going to follow 3 basic laws: identity, excluded middle, and non-contradiction. If you say that logic is flawed because human logic or brain function is flawed, you're saying that there is nothing we can know for sure because all of our thinking is deluded. We obviously exist on some level and are capable of perceiving various facets of a greater unifying reality. If you deny logic, then you're denying the very process by which you can draw any conclusion. It's dangerous to assume logic is inherently wrong just because human thinking is flawed. It's already a self-defeating argument.

If it's true, you can have something like this:

Human thinking is flawed, therefore science is wrong.
Human thinking is flawed, therefore logic is wrong.
Human thinking is flawed, therefore we can't know any truth.
Human thinking is flawed, therefore this statement is false.
Human thinking is flawed, therefore I can't draw any of the above conclusions or even this one.

Now, I don't think "logic is everything," either. I think sometimes we are faced with decisions for which ordinary logic dictates one path, but there might be an instinctive or intuitive feel of "wrongness" about a certain approach and the irrational decision to take another path ends up being the best choice. And there might even have been a logical reason for taking the alternative path that one might only learn in retrospect. In some cases, you'll find that the time taken to carefully weigh out a logical decision is much more time than you have and acting on instinct/intuition is preferable to inaction. But in spite of all that, the decision to consciously act irrationally is itself an exercise in logic--"gut feelings" have proven reliable in the past, therefore they are likely reliable now.

In some cases we're totally dependent on logic. Math is an area of pure logic. The scientific method heavily makes use of logic. That logic has served us so well leads me to believe the human mind is much more reliable than we seem to be crediting it at the moment.

I found all of that off putting as well, but the text itself is interesting. It seems to me the website is a separate party from The Final Freedoms author.

I certainly wouldn't say I'm spontaneously a theist after reading some of it, but it has me thinking in ways almost no other religious text has before. So I'm intrigued. I'll probably finish reading it, it has a new viewpoint on the whole Christian thing I've not heard before.

But I'll give it a go...


Well, being a married man, and as this new teaching deals with the most personal elements of that relationship, I'm sufficiently convinced to begin testing the teaching. And as I can see nothing else with the kind of potential for cultural change this may offer,
I simply need to know if this is real or just another illusion. So here I go. Nine months on I should be able to confirm or expose the efficacy of the moral insight which is described. Being able to do so is itself revolutionary. I'll be back then to report?

Umm...Good luck...I guess? *shrug*

Personally I tend to be wary of any "new teaching" in relation to Christianity. I think Jesus' teachings were easy compared to the rigor of the Pharisaic method, but neither were all of Jesus' insights easy to understand or accept. Jesus' take on marriage and divorce, for instance, are extremely difficult and uncomfortable in a modern context. Before I got married, I made sure my bride-to-be understood perfectly well what my position was on that issue, and we don't even breathe a whisper of the "D-word" in our house. And in the short time we've been married we've had no shortage of contention, but I think we've managed remarkably well in comparison to other couples our age and even younger.

What people will have an extremely hard time with orthodox Christianity is the prospect of being persecuted for their beliefs. While I'd never advocate that anyone come to Christ through blind faith as has been my experience, understanding what that faith is means a total commitment to those teachings and precepts. Once that kind of thing is augmented with something "new" or easier to understand or "new insight," I start worrying whether it really is orthodoxy and tend to shut down in even considering it. In terms of faith, it's easy to be tricked into believing something solely because it's new or attractive.

If you have "faith", its easy to be tricked into believing. (solely because you are capable of believing anything, new, old, attractive or otherwise)

oh yes a divorce will always bring so much misery, not at all like the years some people spend in part misery, years where they could have been happy and more productive to themselves adn the people around them, seen this happen twice and both times it turned out for the better.

i will never understand the arbitrary absolutist views on odd issues, most seem to favor the written word of fallible and biased people over the reality around us.

Excellent advice.