Any major religion is a perfect logic system. How come you do not see that? There are definitions, assumptions, derivations, consequences, and conclusions in all of them.
45 comments
Let's set aside the fact that religion has its contradictions and assume that it's at least consistent. What he's saying is correct. A logical system does not need to accurately describe reality for it to be logical. Mathematics is a perfect logical system but doesn't always describe reality.
Of course, since religion tries to describe reality being logical is not enough, it actually has to be consistent with reality.
Just because a logical syllogism isn't flawed, doesn't mean that it accurately represents the real world.
As an example:
Minor Premise: Johnny likes apples.
The logic is sound, but since one of the axioms is flawed, the result is not necessarily true. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say.
definition, assumption, derivation, consequence and conclusion does NOT make an argument logically sound nor does it ensure a correct/truthful conclusion. you FAIL.
I Define X as Y, Assume X to be True, and Derive from this that Y must be True. As a Consequence, X is Y and my Conclusion is that X is true.
A Mouse eats cheese
All your daffy assed predictions are so vague, and every friggin fundie group has claimed they have happened over and over and over.
I predict the sun will come up in East, and I don't have to stay up all night and wait for it to dawn on me.
"assumptions"
Not so perfect.
1/ Being a logical system is not sufficient to be true in anything more than a logico-deductive sense. Euclidean geometry is internally consistent, yet it is not a true model of our 4 dimensional space-time.
2/ I'm afraid religions have little claim to truth, let alone internal consistency.
Any major religion is a perfect logic system.
Major religions have an internal system of logic which, once certain assumptions have been stipulated, can be maneuvered through to arrive at "logical" conclusions. Unfortunately, when viewed from outside the boundaries of the "logic system", pretty much all the "logical" conclusions reached appear to be bats*** crazy.
Sure, religions have an internal logic which makes sense inside the boundaries. However, the same can be said for a Monty Python sketch. Within the boundaries of a Python sketch it makes perfectly logical sense for the Spanish Inquisition to burst through the door. If the same event were to occurr in real life though, confusion and outrage would be the result.
Inconsistant definitions, unjustifiable assumptions, invalid derivations, non-existant consequences and flawed conclusions do not a perfect logic system make.
"There are definitions, assumptions, derivations, consequences, and conclusions in all of them."
Contradictions, too. Makes it easier to "prove" whatever you want when you can cherry pick the verse that you agree with this week.
Considering the fact that (for example) the bible contains contradictions, I would deny this assumption.
I assume the same can be shown for most if not all other religions ;)
Wat's missing in all of them is EVIDENCE!
Religions are no and can not be perfect logical systems because they are not rooted in reality.
Any major religion is a perfect logic system. How come you do not see that?
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and infallible.
If God knows the future without fail, it means he cannot be wrong about the future (omniscient and infallible).
If God is always right about the future, that means he cannot change it. If he cannot change it, then he is not omnipotent. If he can change it, then he is not infallible.
So, explain to me how your logic works again?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
