This is a post-reply for the previous post titled “literal impotence” by Balsamicos. The Following is written by our new writer JerryLime
Enter Smashmouth soundtrack
To believe in something despite something itself being challenged by logic – is the definition of faith. It’s not that its logically absurd\illogical, It’s that the notion of God transcends Logic. Here’s a straightforward question: Do you expect God to be acted upon by say the law of gravity?
My guess, you would expect not.
So, if the law of gravity doesn’t apply to God, why should the law of Logic! After all, as is Gravity a characteristic of the human realm, so is logic a characteristic of the human realm. We need not forget that logic is a science with premises, created by non other than, some witty human being (there is a specific person to credit btw).
So, since God is not a human being among us (if I need to back this claim up, then youre not the believer\pretender you say you are, and since you say you are, Ill mover forward from here) It is only ‘logical’ that the laws that apply to our realm would not apply to the realm of God. As we once relied on our senses (once, as in, as toddlers) to decipher our existence that was later (as we mature) discredited by a higher judge, intellect, or logic.
Is the sun the size of the coin just because we can position a coin to completely cover the sun? Does the pencil in fact break as the result of the non-existent forces of water in a cup of water, then somehow, re-arrange its self? The obvious examples say it best.
Maybe perhaps a higher judge is yet to manifest its self that will discredit logic. Now, I don’t think there’s denying that this is a logical possibility.And with this being said, it is only logical not to rely on our logic as the supreme judge.So, stating that belief in God is logically absurd, might not be a drawback to the notion of belief, it might in fact be a re-inforcer of that very notion itself.
This is debatable of-course,I’m not saying this perspective substantiates all that appears “illogical” (say a friend of mine preferring the not-so-hot over the hot)
But, since ‘we are merely humans’, even I have to logically justify why an “illogical” is most logical.
And with regards to the safe side argument, its as you said, embracing religion, not belief or faith. I might embrace any sense and form of duty or obligation I owe another, but its certainly not believing in the validity of my own subsequent actions. Or it could be belief, if you want to think of it like this:
Individuals who claim to be a ‘believer’ solely based on the less costs associated with that, are in fact ‘hard-core believers’ with a heightened sense of doubt (which could be physiological for all anyone knows)
As “mere humans”, and this is an opinion, you cannot but doubt any experience or intention or motivation or happening or state of being. Even in the most mundane aspects of our existence, we almost certainly have an elusive “what if” its really this and not that, and even if its a passing thought overwhelmed by a conviction of how it in fact appears, that doubt lurks, even for the sole purpose of being dismissed.
And so safe-believers and hard-core believers could as well be one of the same, except the latter has developed a more efficient mute button for the doubts that echo in their thought process, perhaps by using\abusing logic to validate the existence of God.
A point or two may be plagiarized by my intellectually-sexy… consequently plagiarized by some thinker. And some statements are vague, it could be because I was allowing freedom for you own interpretation. Or I was to lazy to back them up with solid examples, seeing that I slept at 4, and woke up 5 hours later for no apparent reason, the view is too pretty from here.
That wasn't the view.
Posted by JerryLime,