0

I have seen people claiming that "Human logic doesn't apply to God" whenever I claim something god had done that contradicts logic. If this were true then can't I create a religion and write something that contradicts logic and call it that "Human logic doesn't apply to God".

For example,

In my religion dog is the creator of the universe and he and a female dog consummated to give birth to first humans. And if you ask "how", I'll say that logic thing.

If that statement "Human logic doesn't apply to God" is correct, then, wouldn't it be bad that everyone can create their own religion and write their myths and whoever opposes it will be given the answer that "Human logic doesn't apply to God"?

Mauro ALLEGRANZA
  • 36,790
  • 3
  • 36
  • 80
FeatherlessBiped__
  • 11
  • 1
    Where do you think all (or all but one) existing religions came from? – Frog Sep 05 '21 at 07:57
  • 3
    Everyone can create their personal myths, the problem is with getting others to believe them. Try harder. – Conifold Sep 05 '21 at 08:19
  • 2
    "everyone can create their own religion and write their myths " A lot of people created their own religion... Muhammad, Joseph Smith, L.R.Hubbard. Of course, they believed in it. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Sep 05 '21 at 08:45
  • It's a very usually cope out for theists allowing them to keep pretending they are rational while having contradictions in their discourse (you, on the other hand, are allowed none). Since it kills any possibility of discussion, all you can do is raise the following points: 1, while protecting themselves from exposure to contradiction, they just gave up any possibility to convince you. 2, they sure hadlve less problem applying logic to things we don't understand when it fits them, like using the cosmological argument. – armand Sep 06 '21 at 00:42
  • 3, insisting on believing and having others believe in something they confess being unable to comprehend does make them look silly. – armand Sep 06 '21 at 00:42
  • See 'What god is irrelevant?' discussion https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/85796/god-is-irrelevant/85797#85797 plus 'The Philosophy behind prophets and false prophets' https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/84730/the-philosophy-behind-prophets-and-false-prophets/84732#84732 The 'truth' of set of beliefs is defined by having a community of adherents, a la Durkheim – CriglCragl Sep 06 '21 at 01:17

1 Answers1

1

I get the sense that you're using "becomes true" (in the title of your post) to refer to the scenario in which more and more people say it and believe it to be true. But that doesn't make something true. The proposition is either true or false. People's beliefs about it are irrelevant to whether it's true. But I could also interpret your post as aiming at a reductio ad absurdum on the use of that principle ("human logic doesn't apply to God"), like Richard Dawkins' flying spaghetti monster (and its devoted Pastafarians).

But it's interesting to consider: Some humans did think they landed on the "logic" of God (e.g. arguably, Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hegel). But notice that the people that think they know the logic of God tend to be people who believed in God (I guess that would go without saying, since you couldn't think you knew the logic of God if you didn't think that God exists). So the problem isn't with the proposition "human logic doesn't apply to God." The problem is that the people who use that premise also violate that premise (i.e. they dismiss human logic on the grounds that no human can know anything about God, while claiming to know something about God). You certainly can invent your own religion and justify any objections to its doctrines with that principle, but then you'd just be being as irrational as the people you're objecting to here.

No one can debate about anything that "human logic" "doesn't apply to." And what can't be debated about, doesn't exist.

Dayv87
  • 469
  • 2
  • 6