"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

[bluedes]

---

“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God”- Martin Luther

In the context of this quote, I guess its safe to say, belief in god is unreasonable.
and from your post, implying that god is beyond logic, safe to say, belief in god is illogical.

mental hospital padung ani..

[bluedes]

The word 'illogical' does not mean 'beyond logic'. The prefix 'il' means 'not'. The word 'illogical' means 'not logical'.

Is God a logical being? Oh yes. But His logic is way way beyond our logic. Right now, no human can even be near the premise of His logic. Why? Look around. What do we have? We don't have complete knowledge of things. Although science is progressing and the human race discovers new things everyday, I strongly believe even in a million years or more man, in his power, still cannot fully discover everything about God.

So you, my friend, with your very finite and incomplete logic, should not rely your belief in a God basing from what you conclude by reason and logic. Because you may probably be good in your class or possess a higher than average IQ or even be a genius, but it doesn't mean your logic is not susceptible to error.

What if you're wrong with your reasoning about God's existence?

Like I said, and I will always always say, if you want to KNOW if God exists, ask Him. Pray. But when you do, be neutral. Don't be biased on either way first. And be sincere in your heart.

Just try it. If you receive an answer in your heart that there will be no doubt in your mind that He exists, then you know that He indeed exists. If after being sincere and neutral, you don't receive an answer, then you would know He doesn't exist and you were praying to no one after all. Unsa ma'y mawala kung imo nang buhaton?

That's the only way one can know if God exists or not. Not human logic because how fragile and unstable is our logic?

I testify that He exists. I have prayed and asked Him, because I too have had doubts before if there really is a God. It came to the point that everything I did and everything I encountered everyday the question comes to my mind if He really exists or maybe I was mislead by my parents, friends, teachers, etc... And do they really know the God exists. How can they be sure?

I reasoned to myself and looked for evidence or proof whether He exists or not. And almost everything I see tells me that He doesn't. With all the wars, hunger, crime, death, calamities, injustice, corrupt people getting away, good people suffering, etc... All these tells me there couldn't be a Supreme Being watching over.

I thought if there is a God then I have responsibilities towards myself, others, and to Him. I have a future to think about past this life. If there was no God, then I don't have any future past this life to think about. And everything I do now doesn't really matter except for the immediate consequence the belongs to this life.

But I also realized that if I form a conclusion just from the things I see around me or what logical proof I can obtain, then I would be using my own logic. But what if I'm wrong? What if my calculations or analysis missed something - a tinnie winnie bit - and I formed the wrong conclusion?

Fortunately someone told me the very simple thing I needed to do to know if there really is a God and that is to pray and ask God if He exists. I thought ok wala man say mawala nako. So I did. And doing so I remained neutral and unbiased. After I prayed I waited for an answer.

I testify to you my bros here in istorya specially to those who are in doubt and to those who think that there is no God. I testify that there is a God. My prayer was answered. There was no dramatic sign or vision, but there was a peaceful and undeniable feeling in my heart that He assured me the He is there and He loves me and He loves us all. I felt it and I couldn't deny it. My whole existence knew that there is a God and no logical proof can surpass the evidence that I felt in my heart.

That's why I encourage you to try what I did if you really want to know if He is there. With all these debate and reasoning and searching for logical proof about His existence, you can never attain full knowledge or reach a satisfactory answer. "From simple things shall great things come to pass."

wow.. God's logic..

i wonder unsa na klase logic inyo gi-istoryahan..

most people talk about logic and God knows they actually know very little of what logic is..

first of all, there is no such thing as human logic or God's logic.. kataw-an ra mo ana sa mga professors sa academics.. there are evolutions of Logic, from the time of Aristotle which is Aristotelian Logic, to our time karon, which is Symbolic Logic or Mathematical Logic..

in the realm of logic, God is what you call a preconcieved premise.. meaning, you cannot prove whether God exists or does not exist.. pwede ka mu-assume na God exists, pwede pud ka mu-assume na God does not exist.. way sayop, way sakto.. assumptions na tanan.. mao na walay pulos maglalis, kay sa tinuoray lng na Logic, di na na angay lalisan pa

[schmuck]

The word 'illogical' does not mean 'beyond logic'. The prefix 'il' means 'not'. The word 'illogical' means 'not logical'.

Is God a logical being? Oh yes. But His logic is way way beyond our logic. Right now, no human can even be near the premise of His logic. Why? Look around. What do we have? We don't have complete knowledge of things. Although science is progressing and the human race discovers new things everyday, I strongly believe even in a million years or more man, in his power, still cannot fully discover everything about God.

So you, my friend, with your very finite and incomplete logic, should not rely your belief in a God basing from what you conclude by reason and logic. Because you may probably be good in your class or possess a higher than average IQ or even be a genius, but it doesn't mean your logic is not susceptible to error.
<snipped>

so if god's logic is beyond our logic, what logic did you use to arrive to the conclusion the he exists?

Self-refuting imong statement. If we can not use our logic to determine that god exists, then all the more we can't use it to determine if god exists.

So how did you arrive to it?

[maddox22]

so if god's logic is beyond our logic, what logic did you use to arrive to the conclusion the he exists?

Self-refuting imong statement. If we can not use our logic to determine that god exists, then all the more we can't use it to determine if god exists.

So how did you arrive to it?

The answer to your question is in the following context after your snip. Please continue reading my post. Thanks.

[schmuck]

The answer to your question is in the following context after your snip. Please continue reading my post. Thanks.

that was my point, beyond the snip you used your own reasoning.

edit:
you used a variant of Pascal's wager which is flawed.
oh, and personal experience does not count as evidence.

[maddox22]

that was my point, beyond the snip you used your own reasoning.

edit:
you used a variant of Pascal's wager which is flawed.
oh, and personal experience does not count as evidence.

Haay... Do you realize I'm not presenting an evidence? I have no intention to because knowledge of God's existence is personal. I know He exists but that's me knowing not you. I am merely suggesting a way for you to find out whether God exists or not.

It's up to you to do it or not.

[schmuck]

Haay... Do you realize I'm not presenting an evidence? I have no intention to because knowledge of God's existence is personal. I know He exists but that's me knowing not you. I am merely suggesting a way for you to find out whether God exists or not.

It's up to you to do it or not.

There is no evidence for the existence of god. Until such time said evidence is presented, I withhold belief in god's existence.

[brownprose]

You can't seem to get the logic. I cite the fallacy to show your error.

Really? You're pointing out that I don't know my Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam yet you consistently commit and clutter such fallacy all over the place.

Let's take a look. Your argument is simply this: Just because God cannot be proven it does mean that God does not exist. Besides, there is no proof that he also does not exist either. OR...this amounts to saying that Satan has multiple balls in his underwear but since there is no proof that these balls don't exist, therefore it exists. Get the idea now?

"Circulus in probando" / Circular Reasoning -- this is the most fitting description to your Argument#7!

But that does not mean God doesn't exist. If an aeta living in the mountains all his life sees no evidence that the U.S. exists, that does not mean the U.S. does not exist. Your logic is wrong. It is the fallacy known as Argumenjtum ad ignorantiam. Look it up.

False Analogy + Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Again) = Fallacy Ad Infinitum

Sheer ignorance and absence of empirical evidence are not the same bananas. An aeta will remain in his ignorant state if no one will tell or show him around that the US exists. Such is not the case for atheists - they're told that God exists but haven't been shown anything but only Argument No. 7.

There is no reason why the non-existence of God should be the must-be "default" if the existence of God isn't proven. You still have to prove that God cannot or does not exist if you insist that he doesn't exist.

Neither it is right for one to insist to make it as a default to believe in God.

That's right. And that is the position you can justify if all you do is refute all the arguments for the existence of God. The atheist position requires you prove that God does not exist.

I am not trying to refute against the existence of God. I am a theist myself. I'm trying to refute the "wrongness" of insisting a theistic argument to a materialist position. It is a tall or should I say next-to-impossible call to do so.

[maddox22]

There is no evidence for the existence of god. Until such time said evidence is presented, I withhold belief in god's existence.

Mao nay gi-ingon nga ikaw ang mahibalo kung unsay maayo para sa imong kaugalingon. I just hope someday you would try my suggestion.

[mannyamador]

Sigh, browser crashed while I was finishing the post. Ill get back to you on that tomorrow night manny.

Firefox or IE? Even more important, was it running on Windoze?

Hehe... sorry ha, OT. That's my anti-Microsoft hat I'm wearing.

You're pointing out that I don't know my Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam yet you consistently commit and clutter such fallacy all over the place.

Granting even that your accusation is true (I believe it's not; and you haven't substantiated it; but whatever...), that still does NOT correct your error. Pointing out a logical error of someone else does not suddenly make your error disappear.

You are still committing a logical fallacy. You still have to prove your position. If you can't grasp that simple logical principle you're not going to get anywhere.

Your humorous example is hilarious, I will grant that; but it is still erroneous. If the beings cited are corporeal, the claim can be confirmed. If they are not, then it makes an existential fallacy.

Such is not the case for atheists - they're told that God exists but haven't been shown anything but only Argument No. 7.

Argument #7 is one that you still have NOT refuted. I am still waiting for you to even try to do so. If you claim there is circular reasoning, then you have to show it. So far you have failed to do so.

Neither it is right for one to insist to make it as a default to believe in God.

I have stated several times that theists also have to prove their position. Haven't you read my previous posts? I do NOT disagree with you on that.

I'm trying to refute the "wrongness" of insisting a theistic argument to a materialist position. It is a tall or should I say next-to-impossible call to do so.

That's just stonewallling; a lame excuse to cover up the fact that there is no rational basis to adopt such a default position (that God does not exist).

The bottom line is that refuting arguments contrary to a position does not necessarily make that position correct. One must sill prove that position is correct through some form of argument. Unless that is done, that position too is baseless. That goes for BOTH sides of the issue of whether God exists.