Why has religion retained its appeal?

[Cyclone]

1) There is something far greater than myself at work.

 

2) Some refer to the something as nature.

 

3) Some refer to the something as God.

 

 

4) Some refer to the something as the universe.

 

 

5) Some believe this something sprang into existence from out of nowhere.

 

6) Some believe this something must have always existed.

 

Would anyone care to point out which, if any, of the above claims are logical and explain why you believe it to be logical?

 

Which of these is a scientific argument that you think is illogical?

Most of them seem to be statements that you made earlier in the thread.

Many of them are statements about what some people believe, so as those statements stand of course they're logical, we can readily prove that some believe those things.

A facility with and precise use of the English language is key to discussing something logical.

 

1) You made this statement.

2, 3) You made these statements as well

4) I think you're now making this statement unless I missed it being made earlier.

5, 6) These are statements about what some people believe and as I already said, can be demonstrated to be correct (that some people believe these things).

 

---------- Post added 30-07-2018 at 18:14 ----------

 

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary.

To one without faith, no explanation is possible."

 

Saint Thomas Aquinas.

 

Yes, well, that's all rather convenient isn't it. Much like how religions tend to expressly forbid followers from testing their diety and actively discourage rational thought and exploration of ideas.

The definition of faith is that it's without reason or evidence, so of course you can't explain it, because an explanation is an exposition of your reasoning.

[danot]

Which of these is a scientific argument that you think is illogical?

Most of them seem to be statements that you made earlier in the thread.

Many of them are statements about what some people believe, so as those statements stand of course they're logical, we can readily prove that some believe those things.

A facility with and precise use of the English language is key to discussing something logical.

 

1) You made this statement.

2, 3) You made these statements as well

4) I think you're now making this statement unless I missed it being made earlier.

5, 6) These are statements about what some people believe and as I already said, can be demonstrated to be correct (that some people believe these things).

So, because people believe these claims, they must be logical? Is that what you're saying?

[Cyclone]

No, I'm saying that you need to be more precise with your use of English.

 

The statement that "some believe xy&z" is logical if it's true that people believe that.

 

Whether "xy&z" is logical is a different thing to the fact that "some people believe" it... Do you see?

 

---------- Post added 30-07-2018 at 18:25 ----------

 

If with 5 and 6 you are trying to refer to some kind of scientific theories then I suggest you refer to them and ask why they're logical.

If however you talk about "before" time and "nothing" "before" then you're going to struggle to understand the answer aren't you, because you're trying to fit time into some sort of larger 'time' concept. How can there be a 'before' time? How can there be 'nothing' when time and space didn't exist?

[danot]

No, I'm saying that you need to be more precise with your use of English.

 

The statement that "some believe xy&z" is logical if it's true that people believe that.

 

Whether "xy&z" is logical is a different thing to the fact that "some people believe" it... Do you see?

 

---------- Post added 30-07-2018 at 18:25 ----------

 

If with 5 and 6 you are trying to refer to some kind of scientific theories then I suggest you refer to them and ask why they're logical.

If however you talk about "before" time and "nothing" "before" then you're going to struggle to understand the answer aren't you, because you're trying to fit time into some sort of larger 'time' concept. How can there be a 'before' time? How can there be 'nothing' when time and space didn't exist?

 

 

I asked, Which, if any, of the above claims is logical? I never asked whether the fact that people believe these claims is a true fact, and you know I didn't.

 

Now. When you decide take it upon yourself to discredit and undermine peoples faith and beliefs from the position of- "But your beliefs aren't based by scientific evidence", how the hell can you then suggest that I take my argument to scientists? C'mon, I was under the impression that you had an understanding of this scientific evidence? You harp on about it enough..

 

---------- Post added 30-07-2018 at 19:31 ----------

 

If however you talk about "before" time and "nothing" "before" then you're going to struggle to understand the answer aren't you, because you're trying to fit time into some sort of larger 'time' concept. How can there be a 'before' time? How can there be 'nothing' when time and space didn't exist?

 

As I understand it- The universe (everything that exists) began as a singularity (An extremely small, extremely dense ball of matter) that exploded, so to speak, into a rapid expansion 15 billions years ago and as continued to rapidly expand to this very day. This means, by this time tomorrow, it will have expanded further still, into empty space that doesn't exist, because nothing exists beyond time and space.

 

Now. I can say with complete certainty that you consider this theory to be correct and true. Well, apart from the empty space that doesn't exist part obviously, because that's just something I've invented isn't it..

Edited July 30, 2018 by danot

[Anna B]

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary.

To one without faith, no explanation is possible."

 

Saint Thomas Aquinas.

 

That's a brilliant quote, janie.

 

Hits the nail on the head.

 

Thankyou.

[Robin-H]

That's a brilliant quote, janie.

 

Hits the nail on the head.

 

Thankyou.

 

The actual quote is;

 

"Unbelievers are in ignorance of things that are of faith, for neither do they see or know them in themselves, nor do they know them to be credible. The faithful, on the other hand, know them, not as by demonstration, but by the light of faith which makes them see that they ought to believe them, as stated above." (Summa Theologiae II-II, Q. 1, Art. 5, reply obj. 1)

[SnailyBoy]

The actual quote is;

 

"Unbelievers are in ignorance of things that are of faith, for neither do they see or know them in themselves, nor do they know them to be credible. The faithful, on the other hand, know them, not as by demonstration, but by the light of faith which makes them see that they ought to believe them, as stated above." (Summa Theologiae II-II, Q. 1, Art. 5, reply obj. 1)

 

So to sum up

 

Unbelievers will wait until claims are demonstrated to be true before believing.

 

The faithful don't care if the claims are actually true, they just believe they are true.

[tinfoilhat]

So to sum up

 

Unbelievers will wait until claims are demonstrated to be true before believing.

 

The faithful don't care if the claims are actually true, they just believe they are true.

 

Pretty much yeah.

[danot]

So to sum up

 

Unbelievers will wait until claims are demonstrated to be true before believing.

 

The faithful don't care if the claims are actually true, they just believe they are true.

 

Do you believe both of these claims?.

 

Nothing exists beyond time and space.

 

 

Time and space is expanding.

 

If you answer 'yes', based on scientific evidence that proves it, (or say-so as it were, since it is only say-so if all you're doing is taking someone's word for it.) why is it you choose to believe scientists and ignore your voice of reason that must be screaming at you, telling you how improbable it is?

[SnailyBoy]

Do you believe both of these claims?.

 

Nothing exists beyond time and space.

 

 

Time and space is expanding.

 

If you answer 'yes', based on scientific evidence that proves it, (or say-so as it were, since it is only say-so if all you're doing is taking someone's word for it.) why is it you choose to believe scientists and ignore your voice of reason that must be screaming at you, telling you how improbable it is?

 

I refer you to post #216