Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
What else can they use? We have nothing but reason, and therefore logic as its instrument.
The idea of God is a completely rational construct, in the sense that it is the product of our mind's work. Therefore, it is impossible to understand and explain it otherwise than by the methods of reason. But since the idea of god was originally constructed by the mind itself in such a way that the mind could not understand it (one of the attributes of God is his unknowability), we have such questions – why are we trying to prove the existence of God using logic?
With the idea of God as the ultimate idea, the mind has trapped itself in a trap and has been trying for thousands of years to figure out how to get out of it. I haven't figured it out yet.
And why do we prove anything at all? For several reasons. First, we have the capacity to doubt. Second, we have the ability to feel confident that we are right. Third, we usually run from doubt and seek certainty. Fourth, we may have doubts about our confidence. After all, this is where the philosophy grows: how can I be sure that I am not sure for nothing?
Logic is an attempt to formalize the methods by which we deduce others from one statement – so that confidence in the premise gives confidence in the consequence, and doubt in the consequence casts a shadow of doubt on the premise.
And if our sense of certainty is not an empty phrase (otherwise everything is in vain), then what else is there to prove or disprove the existence of God?
First of all, as already noted here, to “prove” something is to provide a logically correct justification for a statement using inferences. The question of what proof is and what conclusions are correct is studied by a special science — logic.
But among other things, the question of” proving the existence of God ” has a long history and is traditionally associated with the so-called “ontological argument” of Anselm of Canterbury: https://iphlib.ru/greenstone3/library/collection/newphilenc/document/HASHde834ca266a4b2a8acdcde?p.s=TextQuery
Because it is reliable, it leads to knowledge. Logic is a very powerful tool. Also, as we have already correctly written, God is the source of everything, so He is the source of logic, and the world is also arranged logically by Him, therefore it is quite reasonable to use logic.
If you rely on faith (as is now fashionable), then this is fraught with mistakes. Someone believes in God, someone in cedars, someone in the big bang, but what is real and what is fiction? On the basis of faith and on the basis of” I feel this way ” it is not known. All believers at the level of feelings are quite sure that they are right. But if someone believes that there is a God, and someone believes that there is no God, one of them is definitely wrong, because they believe in the opposite things. Logic and knowledge can judge.
The history of the question of proving the existence of God in the Middle Ages really has a logical basis. Thus, the above-mentioned proof of Anselm was intended to prove the universal unity of being and concept in thinking, since they are always different in representation.
The question “Is there a God or not?”the form is not correct from a philosophical point of view. Philosophy asks the question: “What is God?” and he is looking for the right way to answer it – logical thinking. Kant denies the ontological proof because he considers the universal concept of ” god “and the special concept of” one hundred tallers ” to be one and the same, so he is forced to abandon the unity of being and concept, limiting our knowledge to the framework of phenomena.
Because they can't prove it experimentally – what's left but unsubstantiated reasoning? But in the very formulation of the question lies a terrible mistake – you need to say not “logically prove that God exists”, but ” logically understand whether there is a God or not.” This is important! “Prove that it exists” means that you have already decided in advance what the answer should be and everything is adjusted to it. It's like saying ” prove at all costs that drinking tea is harmful!”.
In philosophy as a whole, there are two main ways of cognition: rationalistic and sensualistic. Therefore, those authors who followed the first way formulated rational arguments in favor of the existence of God: ontological, teleological, cosmological, existential, and many others.
I think because they want to prove its existence to others, and all people constantly need logic in every explanation to believe it, but in fact logic is not needed here at all
From the point of view of logic: God is for good, but he also punishes, Satan-evil and good, only because there would be no point in giving power equal to the power of God, if Satan likes to do evil. Apparently, they have contradictions in how to act, their own logic-conclusions about how to do better.
Hello. This is not an answer, but only a thought about it.
Why do people use logic for proof? Because this is the least biased way of understanding. Eyes and ears are more likely to make mistakes than logic, which tries to be generally infallible. But does a person have anything infallible?
But what can I say? How can you prove anything about God at all? How can one determine what God is? Every definition is a summation of a particular object under a general universe. And who can measure the Lord or define Him?
Or maybe there are beings of a more general kind, and God is one of them, but with some differences? God is one, incomprehensible, uncreated. Who can know Him?
If we have any evidence, it's probably just a guide to our blindness. Because of our sinfulness, we do not see God spiritually, our spirituality is enslaved to the material principles of the world, as well as to insane pride. God can somehow be known only in detachment from matter and in humility. This is His will. On whom shall I look, saith the Lord? Only on the meek and humble, who trembles at My words (from the book of the prophet Isaiah).
Logical proof occurs by the will of God. For, says the apostle Paul, what is invisible to Him is visible from the contemplation of creatures (from the Epistle to the Romans). That is, it is from the realm of natural revelation, which precedes the supernatural revelation and serves as a kind of guide to it. Therefore, we must not become vain, but must find the Lord by looking at God's creation and marveling at the greatness of Him Who created all things. But if you have only bitter envy and quarrel in your heart, and this leads to blasphemy and blasphemy, then, as James says, do not boast and do not lie to the truth. This is not wisdom from above, but earthly, spiritual, demonic wisdom.
Wisdom from above, the apostle continues, is pure, then peaceful, modest, obedient, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and not hypocritical. But the fruit of righteousness in peace is sown by those who keep peace (from his message).
Not everyone can prove something about God. God is a consuming fire. We must fear the wrath of God and speak carefully about God, so as not to say anything false or blasphemous. At the same time, you must have a clear and intelligent conscience. If you are vain and live according to your passions, then it is better for you to be silent and listen to the wisest in the faith. They will explain.
May the Lord help us all!
And if you think not about logic, but about the existence of God without Philosophy and without logic, I read all these questions and answers, the answer to whether God really exists, I did not see, which means that it is not possible to know God completely, since God is great and omnipotent, and therefore you will not be able to know Him with your sinful head, I advise you for those who want to think not logically and not philosophically but simply as he thinks, which means that soon there will be an answer to this question, without looking at logic and philosophy, otherwise the answer will be lost and will not be real and not real. Pray to God Himself and trust Him on this issue, and you will see the result is sure to be.
Proving the existence of God seems pointless to me. He deliberately doesn't give us one hundred percent proof. So that they believe, and do not know about its existence. This is the value of faith, that it exists not “because” but “in spite”of it. And so that we can prove our love for Him consciously, we are given the freedom of choice, the right not to believe in Him.
This is not logic, this is a delusion. Here's the Logic: Everything has a cause and effect. The universe was created by God. Ok! Then where did it come from? Was it created by another god? OK! Then who created the other god? And who was the first? This is a failure and so-so proof.
It is quite logical that the universe is just a fluctuation (disturbance of equilibrium) some kind of large system, most likely a void. And the current state of the world is just one of its billions of temporary states. Therefore, it is more logical that everything happened by itself and we are microbes that appeared only for a moment in a giant universe. And the fact that the facts speak about the smooth development of living things and humans on earth also proves that consciousness is just one of the forms of adaptation of living things For self-preservation.
If humans realized their uniqueness in the inanimate universe, they would not invent gods to justify their selfish primitive goals: wars, the seizure of territories, resources and slaves. They would cherish and strive to nurture each life by studying the universe and the earth would flourish.
Religion is evil.
Logic is the basis of human thinking, which consists in a causal relationship. God created us humans in such a way that our minds work according to certain laws, and these are the laws of logic. And everything that exists and works in this world works according to the laws of logic.
Since it is impossible to see God with human eyes, we have to use logic and common sense in order to see the evidence for the existence of God. We can't see many things with our own eyes. For example, radio waves, electric current, and so on. But we are sure of their existence, because they produce certain actions on objects or devices. Also with regard to God. We can only see its existence by certain influences or things that have already been done or are being done. Just as, for example, if we find a fire extinguished in the forest, we have no doubt that someone performed this action. We are even sure that it was the action of people, and not animals or just nature. This is logical! Especially if these are much more complex structures, for example, a built house or some kind of device or mechanism. If we have never seen a constructor or builder, we still have no doubt that it exists. And this is very logical!
As for the existence of the Creator, there are so many incredibly complex structures, mechanisms, and interactions that exist and operate. For example, our brain, any living cell, the interactions of trillions of cells in our body (they work as one) and much more. If someone believes in the theory of evolution (this is a separate topic), then you can continue to list constructions and interactions that do not generally relate to the theory of evolution. For example, the microcosm: interaction at the atomic level. Everything obeys the laws. Also, the macrocosm: planets, stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc.D. Everything is subject to laws that someone had to invent and establish. As an example, we can cite the 4 main interactions in the universe, namely: electromagnetic , gravitational, strong and weak nuclear interactions. They not only determine the structure of all matter, but one in relation to the other is measured with jewelry precision. Any change will lead to disaster.
That's why we are given a brain to analyze and come to the right conclusions about the most important issues in our lives. And for those who want to find answers, there is also more accurate information on this topic, which provides more evidence and explains what you need to do to develop a personal relationship with Him.
Since it is not possible to see God with human eyes, we have to use logic and common sense in order to see evidence of the existence of God. We can't see many things with our own eyes. For example: radio waves, electric current, and more. But we are sure of their existence because they produce certain actions on objects or devices. Similarly, with regard to the existence of God, we can only see by certain influences or deeds that have already been done or are being done. Just like if we find a dead campfire in the woods, we have no doubt that someone did it. We are even sure that it was the action of people, and not animals or just nature. This is logical! Especially if these are much more complex constructions, for example che
There is no choice, nothing but logic can be used in this case.
If the question concerns God (whether he exists or not).
Scientific evidence for its existence does not exist, and therefore logic comes into play, and whether it is correct or not is already a matter of chance.
There is not a single documented proof of the existence of God as something divine.
Proof of the existence of Jesus Christ directly as a human being can still be found, but there is no evidence of the presence of divine powers in him.
Logic is used to prove the existence of God, because logic is a way of sound knowledge of the world and adequate communication. Since God created this world, it seems natural and quite possible to prove Its existence. The simplest example of logic. You see a chain of human footprints on the sand of an empty beach and make a LOGICAL conclusion that there was a person here before. You see a huge skyscraper packed with hundreds of different useful devices and, thanks to logic, you understand that this complex structure has an architect, although you are not familiar with him, and you have never seen him. Logic is also used to prove events that occurred in the past and the existence of individual historical figures who lived 100 or 1000 years ago – identifying evidence, facts, causes and effects, and testimonies from various sources. And we find out, with the help of logic, about their real existence, although no one personally knows these people, did not see, or was an eyewitness to the events described.
Similarly, with the “proof” of the existence of God. And the Bible shows a pattern of logic in this.
(Rom 1: 20) “For his invisible things, his eternal power and Godhead, have been visible from the foundation of the world through the contemplation of creatures.”
And if you think not about logic, but about the existence of God without Philosophy and without logic, I read all these questions and answers, the answer to whether God really exists, I did not see, which means that it is not possible to know God completely, since God is great and omnipotent, and therefore you will not be able to know Him with your sinful head, I advise you for those who want to think not logically and not philosophically but simply as he thinks, which means that soon there will be an answer to this question, without looking at logic and philosophy, otherwise the answer will be lost and will not be real and not real. Pray to God Himself and trust Him on this issue, and you will see the result is sure to be.
I think that it is very difficult to change the already established worldview of an adult))).�
I don't belong to any religion. I don't trust religions. I am sure that a lot of information has reached our time in a distorted form. I'm not an atheist, but I respect any other opinion. The role of thought in the creation of the world for me was the fact that there is an axis of symmetry in almost every creation of nature. The second is the presence of a huge number of system relationships related to information processing. Such as flower-pollen-bee-pollination-honey. Or seed-moisture-heat – the process of collecting building materials-the embodiment.�
It's just obvious.
By the fact that it can be used to justify anything. And even the fact that the moon is made of cheese. Logical justification is not in itself a proof of the truth of the judgment. But the logically correct conclusion that follows from observations and experiments can be really close to the truth. 😉
Because in the religious tradition since ancient times, there are 2 trends: mystical, which states that God can be known only in Revelation, i.e. only by faith – if He wants, he will give any knowledge and any evidence. Mystics also often believe that evidence kills faith because it allows for some kind of doubt, which means disbelief.
The second tradition is associated with those who have a developed intellect and want to reconcile the truth of faith with reason (assuming, of course, that there are some things that the earthly limited (sinful) human mind is not yet able to comprehend). But still, if I'm a reasonable person , I want to know what I believe. Moreover, in the Middle Ages, the idea was developed that reason was also given to man by the Lord, which means that faith cannot contradict reason. And from the attempt to reconcile the dogmas of faith and reason, such a thing as “proof of the existence of God” is born. Of course, there is an element of play in this, because the medieval scholastics all already believed in God and there was no need for them to prove His existence to each other. The problem is not to convince anyone, but to test the mind – can it grasp the truth of faith? If it can, it will also prove that God is intelligible. And if he can't, then all that remains is to believe and hope that God will reveal all the secrets someday. And of course, since there is a Revelation of God (the Bible), which already sets out (symbolically and encoded) everything that we can and should know about God, then by interpreting the Bible, we can learn everything about Him and His creation.
Therefore, the intellectual movement in the discussion of whether the existence of God can be proved logically – it accompanies us (well, at least Christians) for 2 thousand years. Even in the first centuries of our era, a controversy broke out about what is more important in religion – faith or reason. Tertullian derived a kind of” psychological proof ” of the existence of God (more precisely, the truth of the Gospel), according to which the authors of Gospel stories should be believed precisely because their story is improbable, because if they invented everything, the story would be plausible. Credo quia absurdum est.
Hints of a kind of proof of the existence of God (which can be called anthropological) are already found in Augustine: he relies on the fact that the human mind is looking for Truth. If a person knows something and strives for Truth (and Truth is not deduced from things and sense experience), then there is an affinity for Truth in him. And Truth is God.
Much later, Anselm derived his ” ontological “proof, which is also called” a priori ” – in which the existence of God is derived as its necessary attribute from the very concept of God.
Even later, the vulnerability of Anselm's proof was pointed out by Thomas Aquinas, who derived “a posteriori” proofs (number 5), starting from existing things in the world. Its scheme is as follows: all things have a cause, one can reduce one cause to another for a long time, but if we do not want to fall into a bad infinity, then we must assume the presence of the First Cause of everything that exists – and this is God.
Later, these proofs were also repeatedly criticized, and the most famous criticism is that of Kant, who proposed a “moral” proof based on the existence of a moral law and the fact that it must rest on some unshakable absolute basis.
Because “proof” essentially means the justification of something through logical inferences. If you do not use logic, then there will be no proof, but faith.
However, there is an opinion that if we understand “God” quite broadly, then it is impossible to prove or refute his existence. It remains to believe or not to believe.