Logic vs Religion

[catnhatnh]

God told me to....For the love of the gentle Jesus,my harmless beliefs in single or multiple gods (or none at all) gives not a single ounce more weight to any of my arguements.A book written and inspired by the lord himself (though sometimes written some centuries after) controls???Does your Lord hate arabs-I doubt it-he MUST be one...if you are born in Bethlehem of indigenous people that is how it works..So now, the gentle Jesus, the Prince of Peace decides that the best usage of his supernatural existance is to....Umm jump Jews and Arabs...The internal logic IS a joke...and if you must defer to a posit-than more power to you...

[ShortnFiery]

1. "Love one another as I have loved you."

The Rapture Right on BOTH sides have hijacked the Islamic and Christian Religions.

It's time for us "Radical Moderates" to put an end to their insanity. Where's the men in white jackets and the butterfly nets? :grr:

The inmates are truly in charge of the asylum (both Ruling Leaders within Iran and The USA). :scared: :nuke:

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. That was rather incoherent.

What is that - some kind of poetry?

[MercutioATC]

3. Stream-of-consciousness writing, I think.

Didn't make any sense to me, either.

[Rabrrrrrr]

5. English as a third or fourth language, perhaps?

[MercutioATC]

9. That's what we get for not making English our national language.

...and yes, that was sarcasm...

:)

[catnhatnh]

8. Sorry

and I address you directly only because we disagree on so much...the main drift was that ANY organized religion looks absurd when taken to it's basic premise...

[MercutioATC]

10. I wasn't aware that we disagreed on so much, but

if that's your contention, I happen to agree with it.

:)

[catnhatnh]

13. Yep...

In another forum, we do... I'll say two things- over in 911 we are in total disagreement-but I have never read one of your posts lightly and I have a different interpretation....that said,let us disagree and respect each other....We are merely friends who have different views,and no discussion yet....

[serryjw]

23. I think sex does also

Have you ever logically thought about WHAT you do in bed?? WOW! humans are strange

[jhrobbins]

42. Thanks.... I thought it was just me that didn't quite get it

:eyes:

[catnhatnh]

4. If you find it poetic...

fine.Tell me Jesus or a God of coherency and a full acceptence of "queers and steers and various weirdos.." tell me of a god whom buys people stranger than myself those who sit in often midnight confusion-that is the God I want....

[Rabrrrrrr]

6. Ummmm... okay. I'll tell you "Jesus".

I don't know what it means, but you asked me to tell you "Jesus" or to tell you "A God of coherency".

:shrug:

So I decided to tell you "Jesus".

And I don't know of any God "whom" (or who) "buys" people. Buy? Like slaves?

:shrug:

Sorry - I can only assume that English is not your first language, so I don't mean to be rude, but your syntax and grammar make no sense. I can sort of, almost kind of, make sense of it, but enough to be confident, and I don't want to risk taking you the wrong way.

[Poiuyt]

7. This doesn't make sense either

[Kiouni]

16. what the hell is that

its freaking me out

[immoderate]

33. Google "Roger Penrose"

He did this too.

--IMM

[hfojvt]

20. "The God I don't believe in is a good god, a just god, a kind and merciful

god. He's not the mean and stupid god you make him out to be." Catch 22

You cannot get the god you want, unless god is made up. Any more than you can get the parents you want, or the planet you want. Show me a planet that is not bitterly cold or blazingly hot. That does not have earthquakes and quicksand and mosquitos and droughts and floods and plagues and so on. If there is a god, then he/she is the way he/she is whether you like it or not.

As far as weirdness. To use the parent analogy, there is weirdness and then there is weirdness. There is mostly harmless weirdness like collecting stamps or listening to the Doors, and there is malevolent weirdness like performing vivisection on the family cat or threatening your younger siblings with knives, and there is dysfunctional weirdness like smoking cigarettes or being bulemic or not brushing your teeth, etc. I would see Jesus as tolerant of the first, condemning the second, and admonishing, or refusing to enable, the third. Even the condemnation can be erased by the simple act of ceasing the insidious activity.

Midnight confusion is often better than evening certitude.

[cosmik debris]

30. I really miss complete sentences.

That is the tried and true method of communication. I don't understand why so many people reject it.

[serryjw]

11. Made perfect sense to me

It is simply the Orwellian interpretation of the bible.

[BlooInBloo]

17. Me too.

[KAZ]

12. This will be locked and moved shortly.

Wrong forum.

[Ravy]

14. Faith sometimes defies logic. That is why they call it faith. (n/t)

[Tinksrival]

15. Logic vs Religion

I'm rooting for Logic!! :bounce:

[Kiouni]

18. i think both are trying to find

the same answer they are just starting at opposite ends.

[hfojvt]

21. depends on the circumstance

but logic, by itself, is pretty cold. There is no purely logical reason for compassion or empathy or altruism. Usually there is a religious basis for them.

[beam me up scottie]

24. Religion is the basis for compassion, empathy and altruism???

:rofl:

Yeah, look around the world, we're positively blessed with it.

[neebob]

27. Explain the statement

that usually there's a religious basis for for compassion, empathy, or altruism. Let's have some examples here.

[hfojvt]

28. okay I said that backwards

not to say that religion is the only basis for compassion - clearly there would be a biological one as well, but that religions typically include those as their core.

[immoderate]

34. Religions will co-opt anything that will help them survive.

Religions did not originate virtue.

Apes and dolphins demonstrate those behaviors and they are not religious. They are biologically based and socially directed. Religion is an opportunistic meme and will adapt anything that helps it's longevity. Remember, religion has never done anybody any good.

--IMM

[serryjw]

22. Faith or Fact

I think you mnay be rooting for the wrong team, I think ours is losing

[Swamp Rat]

19. Are you channeling James Joyce?

:D

[beam me up scottie]

25. I thought it was Edgar Cayce.

:hi:

[Reckon]

26. Try Logic vs Gravity

I guess it's just something we don't understand!

[Reckon]

29. HEY.. people came from worms..

Or maybe just the repubs... LOL

"According to Chinese scientists, fossilized ancient worms found in southwestern Yunnan province which represent the first step in a “long evolutionary history that led to the human species.” Humans evolved from worms!"

Be proud of your heritage! ha ha ha.. Wait a minute, first step? It must be the second step, because scientists say life sprang from inert matter. What's so logical about that?

Inert matter can not give rise to information such as a genetic code! In other words, you can not make rocks into living, breathing, thinking creatures.

‘There is no known natural law through which inert matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.’

So where's the logic? Should we make fun of the scientists that suggest this? lol.

Now I'll let you get back to the logic.

[Jim__]

31. What is the source of your quote?

In your post, you quoted the sentence: There is no known natural law through which inert matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.

This is a pretty astounding statement. Particularly the statement that there is not any physical process that can give rise to information - assuming that's what this sentence is actually saying - it's somewhat ambiguous. How is information being defined? By most definitions of information, as simple a physical process as flipping a coin gives rise to information. I'd be interested to read any paper that contains and supports that claim.

[Reckon]

32. Can information arise from non-information?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/answer.asp

Dr Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, makes it clear that one of the things we know absolutely for sure from science, is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information, and ultimately information is the result of intelligence:

‘A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) … It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.

‘There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.

http://www.nmsr.org/csfnm5a.htm

Indeed, the six theorems of information theory state that it is impossible to:

1. Setup, store or transmit information without a code

2. Have codes apart from a free and deliberate convention (e.g. DNA)

3. Have information exist without having a mental source

4. Establish information without voluntary free will

5. Generate information without all five hierarchical levels of statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics

6. Originate information by statistical processes

You contain information to flip the coin. The question is, can information arise (genetic code) from a non-information inert matter? That is what science claims happened but they can not duplicate it in a lab.

Where is the logic in that?

[cosmik debris]

35. WOW! an IDer and a Fundy! Am I misreading you?

You are the first person I have seen on this forum to refer to a web site that declares the infallibility of the Bible. And you are the first I've seen who supports the idea of intelligent design. I wonder how this will play out?

[Reckon]

36. Really?

I think there's quit a few Christians on DU, and no, I'm not a fundie. They're radicals that want to make their belief's law. I rarely express my views on religion at DU but the topic was about logic. I tried to stick to the science. I didn't say anything about the Bible being infallibility, but it is funny how people think we humans are the superior race of the universe. Is there any chance of Someone being a billion years ahead of us? Or even 10 billion? Look at what we have done in just the last 100 years, I can imagine how superior Someone like that would be to us.

Have we ever had a President that wasn't a Christian? Odds are the next one will be too.

[cosmik debris]

37. The web site you referenced

Says "Upholding the authority of the Bible from the very first verse"

I took that to mean the infallibility of the Bible.

Yes there are a lot of Christians on DU, but you are the first I have seen who supports the idea of intelligent design and uses a web site claiming authority of the Bible to support you arguments.

Good luck with that.

[Reckon]

38. Yes, that was the only place I could get the full quote from

Dr Werner Gitt. Part of his quote is on the 2nd link but I wanted to put it in full context.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with what other people believe as long as it doesn't hurt others.

[Jim__]

39. Your argument is just semantics.

You are free to define information in any way that you want. However, any defintion of information that leads to statements like: it is impossible to have information exist without having a mental source makes subsequent statements like: there is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information close to a tautology. But, such arguments tell us nothing. They tell us nothing about the possible origin of the information in DNA. DNA is a molecule, a very complex molecule, but a molecule none the less. Molecules are formed through physical processes.

You can define information in such a way that the DNA molecule cannot contain information until there is a conscious mind to interpret the information. But, the molecule itself can still come into existence without the need for consciousness; it can still perform the functions that we know it performs, we are now just restricted from labeling the processes or functions as information based. That is merely semantics. It tells us nothing about reality. It places no restriction on the origins of the DNA molecule nor on the origins of life; just on how we talk about these things.

[Reckon]

40. Are you're saying

it's possible for nature to make organic matter from inorganic matter?

One of the six theorems of information theory state that it is impossible to:
1. Setup, store or transmit information without a code'

Then the question would be if the first DNA just came into existence, where did it get the information or instructions to replicate?

[Jim__]

41. DNA replication is a physical process.

The DNA molecule contains in its structure the components necessary for replication. Under most definitions of "information," DNA contains the information necessary for replication. If you want to define information in such a way that it is impossible to have information exist without having a mental source, then we can't say that DNA contains information. However, that linguistic constraint does nothing to alter reality. Once again, your argument is just semantics.

[Igel]

43. There is no inherent conflict between religion and logic.

Logic deals with argument structure and truth conditions.

Religion and science differ crucially with regard to assumptions, and the relative importance of deduction and induction. Both use abductive reasoning (bane of logicians, and boon to those working with reality).

Both religion and science can make use of logic. It may have been the Greeks, with some wildly idiotic assumptions, that produced the catalog of logical thought that we're familiar with, but it was Catholic monks that promulgated and organized much of it, even extending it. As part of the work that they believed their faith required: rationalizing and systematizing their religion (in the sense of making it rational, "consistent with or based on reason", and "ordering it systematically").