Must religion be logical?

My point, and the cause for this thread, was that religions should not be required to conform to informal logic. If a religious belief contains a logical fallacy, I don't think that automatically means that the belief should be abandoned.There are multiple religous beliefs that can be boiled down to logical fallacies like omnipotence and the trinity, for example. Just because they contain logical fallacies doesn't mean that they cannot be correct nor that they must be abandoned. This is why I was saying that religion doesn't have to be logical. I mean, we are talking about a being that has magical powers, how can we subject that to logic?I'm a little unsure about some of your writing: Systems? What are you refering to? Salt crystals can form perfect cubes from completely random initial conditions. What perfection did this perfection come from?

Sorry, Kader, that it took me so long to reply to your kind post.If a statement doesn't deal in facts we can't call it factual truth. The question remains open as to whether it validates itself as truth in some other way. The statement may still have reality behind it.A simple example. You meet a special person. You tell me 'When that person smiles at me, I'm flying.'The other person does, factually speaking, smile. But you do not, factually speaking, fly. Your physical body remains as subject to the law of gravity at such moments as it ever did.It would be unfortunate if I dismissed your statement as untrustworthy because of this. You are communicating something real to me. You are telling me the truth. It would be my loss if lack of effort or imagination on my part prevented that meaning from reaching me.___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

My ending remark was. "The only question left to answer is do we see the Perfections in the systems we see around us. Those who have eyes see".With this I am suggesting that the various systems around us are Perfect and this Perfection must come from a Perfect source.When I refer to systems I refer to the environmental system as a whole, the system of the universe and how it performs perfectly, our earth system that provides perfectly the needs that we have etc..Regards
DL

How do you know the universe performs perfectly? What does "perform" mean in this context? For that matter, I do not see any sensible meaning for "perfect" in this context.You should note that if we were inserted naked into a random location in the universe, we would have almost no chance of surviving for more than a few seconds. Our chances would be somewhat better on the earth, but they would still be pretty slim. How is this providing perfectly for us?

Do you think that maybe you are just seeing what you are looking for?I mean, there are system (by your definition) that are NOT perfect, but I will abmit that some of them are. And this perfection might seem to suggest an intellegent designer, but not by neccessity. I'm sorry but that basically means that you are saying nothing. It boils down to "I see perfection everywhere therefore it must have come from perfection." The conclusion doesn't follow. In fact, it is illogical. Are you sure you want to claim that religions must be logical?Have you considered that your perceived perfection could be imperfections in actuality? That is hardly the case. But lets assume that it is true.While humans evolved, they could only have what was available. How could needs develop that DIDN'T have provision? Of course it is going to look like the provisions were provided for our needs, but really, it happened the other way around. We could only need what was already provided, otherwise we died. The needs arrose from what was provided, not the other way around where what was provided arrose from what we needed. The systems aren't perfect and even with the ones that are and you shouldn't conclude god from looking at the systems bass-ackwards. Those who have eyes see!? Thats a copout. That could be used to defend anything. What would you say to the Scientologist who defended his faith with the same line?

I see the Perfection in our systems.
Show me where there is any flaw in any of our systems.
Then I can see if you are a thinker or an asker only.Regards
DL

"I mean, there are system (by your definition) that are NOT perfect, but I will admit that some of them are. And this perfection might seem to suggest an intelligent designer, but not by necessity.".All our systems are Perfect. I do not see any reference in any thing I said to indicate otherwise as you suggest. If so please lead me back to it and I will change it.As to your other comments I can only offer you the same challenge of finding any flaws in our systems.
That would be the only thing that would kill the logic trail of Perfection creating Perfection. If as you say that some of our system are Perfect, you should be able to detect the flaws in the others.Regards
DL

Why?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Are you saying that it is more likely that they come from an imperfect source. Or by accident to all of our systems.Regards
DL

Why do they need to come from anything?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I predict that you will either outright deny the imperfections or move the goalposts by changing your definition of 'systems'. But, oh well, I'll give it a shot anyways. I'll type something up for you when I have a little more time.

---

P.S.type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:Thansk RAZD

The properties of the universe and of the things in it arise from the laws of physics in various complicated ways. If the laws were different, the properties would be different. I do not see that the idea of "perfection" can be sensibly applied at all.As an example, consider putting objects of various shapes into a jar. Spherical objects will stack differently from cubical ones, and differently again from pyramidal ones. There is nothing perfect or otherwise about this. It is just the way it is.You should be aware that it is easy to compose impressive-sounding statements that actually say nothing at all.

Nor do we see much "perfection" in the "operation" of the universe. The laws of physics are merely descriptions of what we observe in the universe, not "laws" that the universe must follow. And so far we haven't really come up with a description that perfectly describes the universe.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

I see Perfection in the system you describe.
All the components are following their nature completely. This is perfect for them, if you do not see that perfection, you will not likely perceive the larger one.Regards
DL