I give you an answer and you ignore it, pretending that I haven't posted an answer.
You have not given an answer. You've just repeated the same mantra, "It's not logical, it's not logical, it's not logical."
I have asked you for specific logical errors. I have given examples - Appeal to Popularity, etc. Name the logical errors. That's all.
Once you have named the errors, we can discuss whether or not they are actually errors.
Sarah Bellum writes:
I'll give you another chance though, a simple yes or no question: Is the concept of a deity a rational thing?
That's like asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" It's a dishonest question. There is no simple yes or no answer.
A concept, in and of itself, is not rational or irrational. If it has sound reasoning behind it, it is rational. If it has no sound reasoning behind it, it is not rational. As Tangle has said, there can be sound reasoning behind the concept of deities.
You need to point out how the reasoning behind the concept of deities is not rational.
One thing I mentioned was the personification of natural forces. Even the ancients who used the analogy of a blacksmith at a forge to imagine a supernatural entity whose hammer raised sparks that made the heat and light of a volcano must have known that the connection was more literary than literal, not a rational thing but rather a poetic thing.
Another thing I mentioned was the "modern" concept of a creator deity who wasn't himself created, who somehow knows and commands everything but also allows free will. There's enough logical lacunae there to fill (or empty?) the Olduvai Gorge.
Indeed. For example, one may rely on the advice of a friend who has a reputation of good judgment and make a wrong choice (rational, but wrong) but on the other hand one might base one's choice on a horoscope and get lucky (right, but irrational).
Yes, just as sentences can be true or false one concept may be illogical while a different concept may be logical. If you're saying that there are some concepts of a deity that are rational and some that are irrational I suppose one could stretch the concept into meaninglessness (People in the 1950s were said to have worshipped Juan Peron). But that is merely dropping down the proverbial rabbit hole.
Yes of course, there's a wide body of perfectly respectable philosophical argument for the existence of a deity.
quote:The Western tradition of philosophical discussion of the existence of God began with Plato and Aristotle, who made arguments that would now be categorized as cosmological. Other arguments for the existence of God have been proposed by St. Anselm, who formulated the first ontological argument; Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Thomas Aquinas, who presented their own versions of the cosmological argument (the kalam argument and the first way, respectively); René Descartes, who said that the existence of a benevolent God is logically necessary for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful. John Calvin argued for a sensus divinitatis, which gives each human a knowledge of God's existence.
But the existence of rational arguments for something doesn't make that something true - there are at least as many rational arguments concluding the opposite.
And of course none of the arguments support a theistic god. If, by using logic alone, you think that you can show the existence of a god, you've still got all your work ahead of you to show that it's the theistic god that YOU believe in.
And if you could do it without logic ie empirically, we'd all believe. Or more accurately, we wouldn't need to believe; it would be a fact like the existence of electricity.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.