Posted: Jul 25, 2010 8:12 am
by MattHunX
reddix wrote:
ADParker wrote:
reddix wrote:Is it possible for something to be logically consistent and still be wrong?

consistent? Sure.
A great deal of logic does not deal with deductive proofs, but less definite ideas, of probability and plausibility.

Any specific example which led to to ask?

If someone could logically explain God's existence does that make it true, or is it still possible for it to be false?


What? We can all assume that a god created all this, still. But, we can do without that assumption. Just look at the way the religious always move the goal post. First they didn't want to accept the Earth went around the Sun, then they didn't want to accept (or believe) evolution (many still don't), but those who do now, say that the big bang was the work of a god, a god started all. Of course, they still don't consider that even if that was the case, such a being would be incredibly incompetent and callous. But, the one simple and infantile explanation, that is easy to swallow if one doesn't consider physics and looks into astronomy, cosmology, biology...etc. just a bit (the design part of it) is enough for them, because it is simple. It's seems perfectly logical for them that the whole grand and complex universe couldn't have just exploded out and formed this way for us to be here talking about it. Some are satisfied with such an explanation (even though it is unnecessary, but perhaps they don't look deeper into it), some need such explanation (the world makes better sense to them, somehow, and they are insecure if they don't have something to hold onto), some are just brought up to believe (and some to not even question it).