Theist beliefs & logic seem incompatible.

[Dinosaur]

A proof starts with some axioms assumed to be true.
It applies various constructs of logic based on those axioms.
If proper logic is applied, a conclusion is reached which must be true if the axioms are true.

In various Threads, there are claims of a proof or attempts to prove some religious notion. I have yet to see a Thread which actually applies the above principles.

BTW: I suspect that a formally correct attempt to prove some religious notion starts with axioms which would not be acceptable to anyone who was not already a believer.

 

[Yazata]

A proof starts with some axioms assumed to be true.
It applies various constructs of logic based on those axioms.

Rules of inference. There's going to be a problem justifying one's rules of inference though. In practice, that often seems to be a matter of intuition.

If proper logic is applied, a conclusion is reached which must be true if the axioms are true.

Ok. For deductive logic.

In various Threads, there are claims of a proof or attempts to prove some religious notion. I have yet to see a Thread which actually applies the above principles.

I have yet to see anyone present a formal deductive proof for anything on Sciforums.

I think that in contemporary usage, on the street, in the media and in science (among pretty much everyone who isn't a mathematician or a logician) the word 'prove' doesn't mean 'formal deductive proof'. It means something much looser and less clearly defined, such as 'convincing argument'. So we will find people saying that things like experimental confirmation constitute 'proof' of things like Einstein's theory of relativity.

Interestingly, back at the time of the scientific revolution, thinkers often tried to present their theories in deductive form, in the style of Euclid's geometry, full of theorems and lemmas. But that model was so cumbersome that it quickly was abandoned.

BTW: I suspect that a formally correct attempt to prove some religious notion starts with axioms which would not be acceptable to anyone who was not already a believer.

Yes, I think that's usually the case.

Here's a question: What does the subject line have to do with all this?

 

[kx000]

Logic can tempt when love and faith are suppose to be perfect. Believe then know. Logic makes you think of hate. You can try being passive.

 

[Jan Ardena]

A proof starts with some axioms assumed to be true.
It applies various constructs of logic based on those axioms.
If proper logic is applied, a conclusion is reached which must be true if the axioms are true.

In various Threads, there are claims of a proof or attempts to prove some religious notion. I have yet to see a Thread which actually applies the above principles.

BTW: I suspect that a formally correct attempt to prove some religious notion starts with axioms which would not be acceptable to anyone who was not already a believer.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Can you give an example of what your would regard as logical, theist argument, that you would deem compatible?

jan.

 

[Dinosaur]

From Jan Ardena Post #4

Can you give an example of what your would regard as logical, theist argument, that you would deem compatible?

I do not know of any logical theist arguments. If I did, perhaps I would not be an atheist.

From various Posts you have made to other Threads, I surmise that you are a theist. Id Est: You seem believe in the existence of a god or gods. I think you are a Christian: Correct me if you have some other theology.

It seems to me that the theist is the one who should be Posting arguments in favor of the existence of a god or gods.

Note that I do not believe in Unicorns, fairies, alien abductions, & many other notions. I do not feel obligated to provide proofs for non-existence beliefs. The burden of proof seems to be on the back of believers.

BTW: I expect that a properly constructed proof of the existence of a god or gods could only be refuted by objecting to one or more of the axioms. This is the case for most (probably all) properly constructed proofs.

 

[Hapsburg]

Belief need not be held by faith alone; faith is in contradiction to logic, as faith is held without regard to logic or evidence. My polytheism is based on my experiences, and extrapolations of those experiences. I neither claim that they are absolute truth, nor do I follow ideas on faith. I was raised with far too much of a skeptical, critical mind to be a man of faith. But I am a man of experience.