Following a theological argument I had with someone, I'm making a declaration:

I will believe in any god or group thereof whose existence can be proved by logical argument

I have this kind of argument regularly. So, people, come on! Convert me!

Do you know how freakishly hard this will be?! The most religious person in my family (my grandpa) cant even do that to my atheist brother! Good luck finding someone

nope. tis easy. i will convert you to being an Agnostic, because the only real truth is that nothing is certain.

so nyah:P

HE SAYS THIS DESPITE THE FACT HE HAS A DEMON FROM HELL LIVING IN HIS HEAD... TSK TSK... WELL, LOGICALLY MY EXISTENCE PROVES THE FACT THAT THERE IS A HELL, SO SATANISM MAY BE A GOOD CHOICE FOR YOU...?

I was arguing with someone about religion, as I do often - it being a hobby of mine - and he made me admit that, should a god's existence be proved through logical argument, I would have to believe in that god's existence. Hence this thread. Hell, even if you're not religious, play Devil's Advocate and argue against me.

Sorry, but I really can't think of a logical argument.

I doubt there are any on this subject, really. You can't exactly draw up a math formula that proves that there is indeed some sort of higher being.

Which is exactly my point!

*forcibly prevents self from ranting*

Ahem.

lmao

Why not rant away? I love a good rant about this sort of thing.

I fail to see how anyone can believe in a religion, because I can't see any logical reason to believe in any particular god. I can't see any argument which would support Yahweh over Allah, Brahman or the Lady. Of course, I'm seeing things from my point of view, so if anyone can correct me, please do.

Jonmanism's the religion for you, meladdo.

Simply by reading this very message, the existance of your deity is confirmed. The internet doesn't lie.

Send your religious donations (by Paypal) to:

His_Righteous_Godliness_Jonman@hotmail.com

the logical argument for god's existence is that he talks to all of us regularly, some refuse to listen and the others're in mental hospitals

That's because religion is not logical, it is irrational by nature. I don't think that believing in a certain religion or god/dess(es) has anything to do with what a person feels is most logical; more likely, it has to do with what feels right emotionally and spiritually. It is based on faith (irrational and not proveable) after all. In our Western society, we tend to value logic and reason above all else, while other cultures place more value in the spiritual and in the intangible emotions. If you tried to explain to those cultures that science explains everything in the world around them, they'd reject that completely because of being raised in a different culture with different values, just as we would completely reject their illogical explanations for how the earth and humyns came into being and how nature operates. I think that one thing to remember is that religious and spiritual explanations are not to be taken literally. Beyond that, I can't explain much, since I am essentially agnostic myself.

While I do not adhere to any specific religion or deity, I do find it unfortunate that "irrational" emotion is so undervalued in our society...

An example:

Logical argument: It's important to preserve the rain forests because they produce a large percentage of the oxygen that sustains us, and if we allow rainforests to be cleared, then there's a rise in the carbon dioxide building up in the atmosphere, etc., etc...

Emotional argument: It's important to preserve the rain forests because they house a lot of nature's precious creatures and creations.

Is either argument better than the other? I think both are valid -- just in different ways. To me it's important not to completely invalidate our capacity for empathy/sympathy/emotion, because those factors have been as much a part of our evolution and have contributed to our survival as much as our capacity to reason has done.

I'm wandering astray from this topic, but my point is basically that spirituality serves a different function than reason and rationality. I think you may be going about it the wrong way by expecting the existence of a god to be logically proven to you, because religion is based on faith, and faith cannot be proven. You can't measure it, take photos of it, physically touch it, or visually see it. It's just something that's very personal and individualized.

As for why someone accepts one religion/god over another, that can basically be attributed to the idea that the individual does not choose the religion so much as the religion chooses the individual. Another abstract and unproveable concept, yay.

*dons her Devil's Advocate Cloak*

Having said that, I could turn your original question back on you: How can you be an atheist, based on logic, if you don't know for a fact that god does NOT exist? Have you proven by logic that there absolutely IS NO GOD? Otherwise, how do you know that being an atheist is really logical?

Could it be said that you in fact have faith in logic in the same way that others have faith in a god or goddess? Simplistically, each religion just provides a way for humyns to explain the world around them. Isn't this the same thing logic and science do for you? What's the difference, really? How do you know that logic leads you closer to the truth than spirituality does? Have you ever attempted to connect with your own personal, inner truth and/or with a higher knowledge through meditation, ritual, or other spiritual means? If not, then how do you know that this is an invalid way of thinking/living? What makes logic so much more valuable than what's in the inner spirit or soul?

Okay, I enjoy this topic too much. And I'm bad at playing devil's advocate. *removes Devil's Advocate Cloak and returns to god-free neopagan agnosticism*

I just thought of another related question: Can logic itself be proven to be logical? If not, then how can you know it's really leading you to the ultimate truth (whatever that is)?

This is precisely my point. Faith is belief without foundation. There is no reason to have faith that I can see, or at least no reason to have a particular faith over another when both are equally unfounded.



You're shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the party making the assertion - which, by virtue of you being the resident Devil's Advocate, is you. I don't have to prove God doesn't exist, because it is impossible to prove a negative. I can't prove there isn't an ice-cream factory on Jupiter either. The burden on proof is on you.

I dont know what to tell everyone...I myself do not belive in God/s goddes....It just seems...if they are up there they hate me so why bother? plus it cant be proven in modern days...sure they say alot of things happened in the bible and stuff...but what in modern days can be proven was done by God/s...everything has a explanain...

In a way, yes, I am shifting the burden of proof. However, looking at it another way, the burden of proof lies with you to prove the statement that "there is no god." (You are an atheist, not an agnostic, right? Or am I reading you entirely wrong?)

There is a lack of proof that there *is* a god, but that lack of proof does not mean that there is NOT a god, which -- if you're an atheist -- seems to be the connection you're making. If there is not enough proof either way, then your best bet is to suspend judgment (probably by adopting an agnostic outlook).

So, if you're atheist, then on what do you base this judgment?

You can't prove a negative, which is why the burden of proof lies with you. I can't prove God doesn't exist, I can't prove anything doesn't exist, but that is not the debate. No matter how hard you argue that I cannot prove that God does not exist, that's not the point. The point of the discussion I started in this thread is that God's existence cannot be proved beyond even a reasonable doubt, and so the logical assumption is that he does not, hence my atheism.