Well, there goes Religion. . .

How does Christianity violate the laws of logic?

1.) Logic is fluid and follows in the path of the premise. What may seem logical to me may not be logical to you. So number one is not specific.

2.) What amounts to empirical adequacy is also a personal consideration and opinion.

3.) Experiential relevance, too broad a requirement.

Hence, the above three assessments can only be valid in judging your own world view, and not the world view of others whose opinions, beliefs and experience, premises and logic is different.

How does it Not?

You believe a guy was dead for three days, and rose from the dead. you believe that there is a man in the sky, who has a list of 10 things you cannot do if you do any of these things, you will burn and suffer for all eternity. But he loves you!

1. Logical Consistency
a. the OT/NT is full of historical inaccuracies, for example, if you match the events written about with history you have the Census of Quirinis and the birth of Jesus spanning over ten years, usually gestation takes 9 months. There is so little evidence for Jesus so there are so many different theories.
b. The OT g-d who demands sacrifices, suddenly says ok, just one more and than that's it? the main difference between Xianity and Pagan Mystery religion is that the Pagans viewed the dying/resercreting g-d on an annual basis with the change of seasons, where Xians again say one and done.
c. By faith you are saved, so came to faith and is in Heaven now.

3. Experienial Relevance:
All religions have this, most people come to faith through a phenomological experience; however the support system to keep and maintain this faith may or may not be cult-like.

4. I am so sleepy.

Do you believe truth is non contradiction?

Truth is not non-contradictory, for example:
light is a wave.
light is a particle.
Both statements are true and yet appear to contradict each other.

Yes I believe there is a guy who was dead for three days and rose again. Its only illogical on a purely naturalistic basis.

I dont believe in a man in the sky who has a list of 10 things you cannot do.

So, what you are saying, his you don't believe in the Christian God, or the Ten Commandments?

Law of Non-Contradiction: (a) Not (p and not p) or (b) (for all x) not (x is P and x is not P). It is not possible that something be both true and not true at the same time and in the same context. I think the notion of time is more inherent in the Law as we normally understand it , but that the notion of context is equally important.

Example: A table can not be both made entirely of wood and not made entirely of wood.

Possible Counter Example : Light (l) is both a particle (P) and a wave (W). It makes sense to then say that (for all l) not (l is P and l is not P) and this statement is true because light is both a particle and not a particle.

Problem: Both notions of context and time were lost. For physicists light is only considered to be a wave or a particle depending on the nature (i.e. context) of the problem to be solved. Light is not considered to be both a particle and a wave at the same time.

More Counter Examples ? P = mostly empty space and x = a table. Or perhaps, P = is free and x = Paul. In both these case it seems we still need to be both temporally and contextually sensitive.

I believe in the God of the bible, not some man in the sky.

Do you believe in truth?

Yet, when praising "god" most people look to the sky, and when in prayer, they bow their heads away from the sky. . .

You are using Aristotalian logic, which implies yes/no. Schrodigger Cat analogy and Quantum physics implies the need for a maybe. One way to work around this is to use E-Prime, which is English with any use of the word "is" is removed. For example, on the previous light issue, if worded "light appears as a wave when measured by machine X and light appears as a particle when measured by machine Y" there is no contradiction. This is the language of most scientific writing.

Indeed. (But you are changing the subject and ignoring the points I have put forth.)

I am a legal ordained minister. I am the High priestess of the Universal Life Church of Brutal Truth and Honesty.

I advocate for people to be truthful to themselves and others.

Think Truth

Let me take you aside
With a sample of thought
And tell you about the earth ride
That you have heard not.

What games we play my friend.
What fools we be
And we can’t see the end ;
We live eternally.

The dream is our creation;
It’s the thoughts we share
The illusion of a nation
That we have all put there.

See truth!
(Put on your truth glasses.)
Think truth!
(As the illusion passes..)
Be truth!
And know that you are!

You use the yes/no logic to deny it. There is no way around it.

Wrong. Quantum mechanics is not described using classical forms of logic . . .

Nubby you would do well with a formal education.


______________________________________


Oh man just ran across this one its so great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pusSNjBd8do

Are you denying the law of non contradiction Billy?

No, it just does not apply to Quantum mechanics. Ever heard of an Einstein Bose condensate?

Every heard of retro causation? There are many things at the quantum level that go completely against traditional "macro" forms of logic.

If you take an absolutists stand point on these very old forms of logic then you will fail to appreciate the true strangeness of QM, as well as fail to be able to deal with it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic

When I say you need a formal education I am not trying to be derogatory, not in the least, but as someone who is traveling down that path myself, one of the first things a professor will do with you is to explain that you are trying to use the wrong tool, for the job.

You are right Billy, I should not have commented, I dont know enough about it, I thought my post was a satisfactory answer.