Biblical Evidence God Doesn't Exist: using logic rather than belief.

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Windmillcharge

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2017
2,934
1,823
113
68
London
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Just what do the biblical authors mean by ", Biblical Evidence God Doesn't Exist: using logic rather than belief"

Interesting to prove God exists using logic.
First you need to prove thatr logic exists without God.

Christian theology teaches that God exists outside of the material universe, that time, space, energy and matter are all his creation.
It also teaches that the universe reflecs something of Gods character, in that God is reasonable and rational so the universe is also able to be understood by reason. It follows then that logic is merely an out working of Gods character.

So in seeking to use logic to prove there is a God you have already done that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brakelite
B

brakelite

Guest
Windmills post above notwithstanding, I agree with @shnarkle that God cannot be found out using logic. The Bible also agrees...
KJV Job 11
7 Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?
8 It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?
9 The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.
Job 11:7-9
The mightiest intellects of earth cannot comprehend God. Men may be ever searching, ever learning, and still there is an infinity beyond. That is why the Bible says that the just shall live by faith. Only through faith and revelation can God be known. Trying to prove the existence of God from scripture is impossible. I didn't read anywhere in Shnarkles post that in reality God does not exist... Just according to logic, He doesn't exist. Even the Bible itself doesn't attempt to prove the existence of God. It merely assumes His existence... In the beginning God...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heart2Soul

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Bothered? You say? Why would anyone want to read further after that sentence....saying 'gods' and not God...
and imaginary...nope.
Maybe the problem is just as a writer... that was not the best choice in opening remarks for this crowd...or at least 'me'...who doesn't
open to such talk when I come to a Christian sight to get away from speculations about gods or God's very existence.

If you said something diff later...great...you lost me! Take care.

Being open to talk is what a debate forum is all about. Did you notice that this was posted under "debate"? Did you see anywhere in that heading anything about "trolls", or "trolling"? Yes, do take care, especially please take care to note that I'm not here to pretend to be an echo chamber for those who already think they know it all.

Debate is a great way for a Christian to exercise not only their faith, but to provide them with an opportunity to defend their faith as well. If you have no desire to defend your faith beyond trolling, I can see why you responded as you did. I can engage in some friendly trolling as well from time to time to give a troll the attention they so desperately need. Eventually, even I grow tired of it and must leave them to cast their hooks elsewhere.
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Please use the "Reply" feature so we know when you have made a reply.

Please elaborate one which "Reply" feature you're referring to. After I read you post, I click on the "Reply" button which then reveals your post, and an opportunity for me to respond to what you've posted. Then I click on "POST REPLY", and it shows up as the last post in the thread. What other "reply feature" are you referring to?

That is not what Paul is saying. He is saying just the opposite, that they had known God.
He doesn't state "had known God". He says, "are known".

So you are calling him a liar.

Fallacy of the non sequitur. It doesn't follow that just because I point out something that Paul actually wrote that I'm then calling him a liar.

As for debate and assertions, I am doing neither,

No doubt that there is no intention of engaging in debate. These posts provide ample proof of that fact. No need to point out the obvious, but these posts are mostly filled with baseless assertions and irrelevant questions.

it is the way of God. Take it or leave it.

This assertion seems to me to be your way, and as such I would like to go with the "leave it" option.

What specifically would you like me to elaborate on?

I would prefer to ignore anything and everything that isn't presented as an argument addressing or refuting what I've posted.


As for words, are you calling me an "idolater?"

As for words? Again, there doesn't even seem to be a rudimentary comprehension of the fundmantal principles of debate. I am not engaging in logical fallacies here. I am not engaging in ad hominem. I am not addressing you, but what what's being posted
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Interesting to prove God exists using logic.
First you need to prove thatr logic exists without God.

Why? If I am using logic, doesn't that prove that it exists? I don't need to prove a hammer exists while I'm building a house, do I? Why would I need to prove God's existence in order to use logic? And while I'm using logic, it obviously exists or I wouldn't be able to use. How does one use nothing, and how does one go about proving nothing exists? Isn't it a given that nothing doesn't exist?

QUOTE]Christian theology teaches that God exists outside of the material universe, that time, space, energy and matter are all his creation.[/QUOTE]

So true! God is synonymous with transcendence. Which necessarily leads us to the irrefutable conclusion that God cannot exist in the material observable universe. God and God's kingdom cannot be discerned by observation. Christ pointed out that simple fact himself.

QUOTE]It also teaches that the universe reflecs something of Gods character,[/QUOTE]

And a reflection cannot be what is reflected, especially when the reflection can't reflect a "what" or "thing" to begin with. John's introduction points out that "all things are created", and God is not any thing.

in that God is reasonable and rational

God is not synonymous with "reasonable" or "rational". Look up the definitions of both, and you will find nothing even suggesting God's existence. This assertion is in need of some deductive proof.

so the universe is also able to be understood by reason.

And yet we are also aware of the universe without the use of our intellect. There is no reason to arbitrarily select our reasoning capacity as a proof for God. Why not any of our other senses as well?

The universe is not understood. This word for a whole lot of empty space with scattered clouds of hydrogen gas and swirling rocks doesn't tell us much of anything. We see it expanding, but we don't know why. We see it is vast, but in relation to what? Us? The more we know, the more we don't know. Understanding is not fundamental, but derivative, and it doesn't then follow that we can then know much of anything using what is itself a derivative or reflection.

It follows then that logic is merely an out working of Gods character.

You're assuming that by observing the world that exists we can infer or demonstrate the existence of what is beyond this world. The problem is that attaching the word "God" to that doesn't tell us much of anything. The problem is that the common denominator of all that exists is existence itself, and to transcend all that exists without transcending existence is to ignore the basic meaning of the word. You're simply contradicting yourself.

The question boils down to why is there something rather than nothing? The fact is that there is something rather than nothing, but the proverbial fly in the ointment is that our western way of thinking necessarily provides "nothing" as a counterweight to "something" as if it exists. Nothing doesn't exist except as a counterweight for our dualistic way of thinking about something. The problem is that we assume that logic conveys reality. It doesn't. Logic must simply assume nothing doesn't exist which is a contradiction, and the fallacy of begging the question.

You can't use logic to prove God's existence because logic is a science, and sciences do not deal with anything other than deductions and demonstrations of the observable world. Again, God is not observable. The bible points out that God and God's kingdom cannot be discerned by observation, and only what exists can be observed.

It doesn't then follow that everything that exists can be observed, but then as I pointed out before, John informs us that God is not anything.
 

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,696
5,575
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Please elaborate one which "Reply" feature you're referring to. After I read you post, I click on the "Reply" button which then reveals your post, and an opportunity for me to respond to what you've posted. Then I click on "POST REPLY", and it shows up as the last post in the thread. What other "reply feature" are you referring to?

He doesn't state "had known God". He says, "are known".

Fallacy of the non sequitur. It doesn't follow that just because I point out something that Paul actually wrote that I'm then calling him a liar.

No doubt that there is no intention of engaging in debate. These posts provide ample proof of that fact. No need to point out the obvious, but these posts are mostly filled with baseless assertions and irrelevant questions.

This assertion seems to me to be your way, and as such I would like to go with the "leave it" option.

I would prefer to ignore anything and everything that isn't presented as an argument addressing or refuting what I've posted.

As for words? Again, there doesn't even seem to be a rudimentary comprehension of the fundmantal principles of debate. I am not engaging in logical fallacies here. I am not engaging in ad hominem. I am not addressing you, but what what's being posted
1) Good job!

2) Semantics.

3) That's a cop out.

4) You call quoting and paraphrasing the most popular book ever written and giving personal witness, "baseless?" You have real problem.

5) God's way is an established fact. No room for debate.

6) Did that.

7) Debate is not all that happens on a "board" or "forum." You have not established any proof of "logical fallacies here." And on the contrary, you are indeed "engaging in ad hominem"...yours. We, on the other hand, are here representing a greater reality and the next age of human existence, which you are apparently so unaware of that you have come campaigning your inner struggle.

You're not faring so well. Maybe you should ask questions instead of making empty claims.
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
1) Good job!

So much for your pointless distractions. Back to the subject of this post:

Just what do the biblical authors mean by "God" anyways? We all know that all gods are imaginary, right? So what makes the biblical god any different than, oh let's say the 330 million deities that populate the Hindu pantheon of gods?

This is a claim I have made so as not to exclude any atheists who might want to join in the discussion. I am speaking to them in terms they can understand. This shouldn't preclude any Christians from joining in on the discussion, and by the looks of things it hasn't; at least by those who claim that moniker.

Well for starters, the biblical authors distinguish their "God" from the rest by pointing out that if you're imagining anything about "God", you're not imagining God at all. You're just looking at the product of your own imagination. They even have a word for it. They call it idolatry.

This is pretty straightforward. God commands that no product of one's imagination be worshipped.

An idol is any object that is viewed as a god itself. In other words, the biblical authors don't believe in objectifying "God" at all. They can imagine all sorts of gods just like the next guy, and they can admit that these gods are all imaginary. In fact, they would be the first to point out that they aren't gods at all. They're simply imaginary ideas. That's not what they mean by "God", and whatever meanings or definitions they do come up with aren't God either. They're just meanings and definitions for the word "God", which they will be the first to admit is simply a symbol for its meaning. Again, words and meanings are not gods; they're words with associated meanings.

The fact that this hasn't been addressed indicates that it has yet to be refuted.

Paul also points out that Christ isn't God when he refers to him as "the image of the invisible God"(Col.1:15). The word he uses for "image" is the Greek "eikon" which is where we get words like 'icon';"iconography"; "iconoclastic" etc. An icon should not be confused with an idol. As noted previously, an idol is worshipped as god, but an icon is a representation of God, and representations are not gods themselves.

Some would hasten to note that these two terms are synonymous, but this is only in relation to "things", and the biblical authors don't include God as any thing.

Note that I am using Paul's own words, as well as alluding the introduction to John's gospel which clearly points out that "all things are created".

No one has addressed this point, therefore it still remains unrefuted.

Given that the word "God" is essentially undefinable, unimaginable, and unknowable, that's what Jesus represents. He is an immanent representation of transcendence.

I probably could have worded this more accurately to say that the word "God" from the biblical perspective represents the undefinable, unimaginable, unknowable. Jesus proclaims that he only does what he sees the father doing, and Jesus' main point is self sacrifice. Jesus is transparent.

The biblical authors have a name for their "God" which they call "YHVH" which means "I will be", or "I will be what I will be", and what will be doesn't exist. Potentiality is not actuality.

Again, this is straightforward simple logic, and no one has addressed this point, much less attempted to refute it.

They use words like "incomparable" or "there is none beside me". In other words, there is no referent for transcendence. There is no essential difference between the word "God" and nothing. There is no referent for God other than the word "God" itself.

This is not only logically consistent, but empirically evident. Still no one has addressed this point either.

The New Testament's gospel of John points out essentially the same thing. The introduction doesn't begin with "in the beginning was God". Why? Because God doesn't exist. He begins with "in the beginning was the word". That's all there is to begin with.

Anyone see anything to disagree with here?

He then continues by pointing out that everything that exists is created(vs. 3), and at no time does he or anyone else ever suggest that God is created. Therefore, for those who are lacking even rudimentary reading comprehension skills, it logically follows that God doesn't exist. This is especially so given that the biblical authors view the objective world as the created world. So by definition, God can't objectively exist in the created world.

Is your god a work of creation? If so, then let's see your god. If not, then address this point.

Paul reaffirms this in his letter to the Corinthians when he points out that God is the origin (not to be confused or conflated with "beginning") of all that exists while Christ is the means by which everything exists (1 Corinthians 8:6).

Again, another point that has yet to be addressed, and still remains unrefuted.

For those who insist in asking the question, "Who created God?, Paul's argument refutes that by pointing out that the origin of existence cannot logically exist without creating an infinite regression. So he has simultaneously admitted that God doesn't exist and denied the need for an infinite regression.

Perhaps I should have waited to include this point in this thread. It's a bit more involved than the previous points. Nonetheless, I'd like to see someone address this as well after addressing the previous points.

Christians supposedly live by the Golden Rule which asks that they be treated the same way they treat others. By ignoring the subject of this OP, I can only assume that you wish to be ignored as well. I am only too happy to oblige.
 

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,696
5,575
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So much for your pointless distractions. Back to the subject of this post:



This is a claim I have made so as not to exclude any atheists who might want to join in the discussion. I am speaking to them in terms they can understand. This shouldn't preclude any Christians from joining in on the discussion, and by the looks of things it hasn't; at least by those who claim that moniker.



This is pretty straightforward. God commands that no product of one's imagination be worshipped.



The fact that this hasn't been addressed indicates that it has yet to be refuted.



Note that I am using Paul's own words, as well as alluding the introduction to John's gospel which clearly points out that "all things are created".

No one has addressed this point, therefore it still remains unrefuted.



I probably could have worded this more accurately to say that the word "God" from the biblical perspective represents the undefinable, unimaginable, unknowable. Jesus proclaims that he only does what he sees the father doing, and Jesus' main point is self sacrifice. Jesus is transparent.



Again, this is straightforward simple logic, and no one has addressed this point, much less attempted to refute it.



This is not only logically consistent, but empirically evident. Still no one has addressed this point either.



Anyone see anything to disagree with here?



Is your god a work of creation? If so, then let's see your god. If not, then address this point.



Again, another point that has yet to be addressed, and still remains unrefuted.



Perhaps I should have waited to include this point in this thread. It's a bit more involved than the previous points. Nonetheless, I'd like to see someone address this as well after addressing the previous points.

Christians supposedly live by the Golden Rule which asks that they be treated the same way they treat others. By ignoring the subject of this OP, I can only assume that you wish to be ignored as well. I am only too happy to oblige.
The problem is your approach while lacking in communication skills is in a manner offensive to both believers as well as atheists. And you rattled on.

I recommend picking one thing, discussing it, and when played out, then and only then, move on to your next point.
 

Miss Hepburn

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2009
1,674
1,333
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Being open to talk is what a debate forum is all about. Did you notice that this was posted under "debate"? Did you see anywhere in that heading anything about "trolls", or "trolling"? Yes, do take care, especially please take care to note that I'm not here to pretend to be an echo chamber for those who already think they know it all.

Debate is a great way for a Christian to exercise not only their faith, but to provide them with an opportunity to defend their faith as well. If you have no desire to defend your faith beyond trolling, I can see why you responded as you did. I can engage in some friendly trolling as well from time to time to give a troll the attention they so desperately need. Eventually, even I grow tired of it and must leave them to cast their hooks elsewhere.
I was attracted to the Subject Title...my bad...I never looked that it was in the Debate Section!
Again My Bad. I am on many forums...I thought most 'rules' say...you can't call someone a Troll.
If you are able to here...ok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pearl

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
I was attracted to the Subject Title...my bad...I never looked that it was in the Debate Section!
Again My Bad. I am on many forums...I thought most 'rules' say...you can't call someone a Troll.
If you are able to here...ok.

Most forums suggest or prohibit trolling. I didn't call anyone a troll. Addressing the person rather than the content of their post is the fallacy of the ad hominem.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think your OP makes a good point snarkle - and not only are our images of God idols, they are woefully inaccurate and if people understood your OP they would agree with you.

I have recognized our opinions as idols as well
 

Windmillcharge

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2017
2,934
1,823
113
68
London
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Why?
..
.

"Why would I need to prove God's existence in order to use logic?" You don't have to prove God's existence, but if you have no other explanation for logic your argument is over as God is the reason for logic so in using it without an alternative explanation you accept that there is a God.

"The question boils down to why is there something rather than nothing?"
And the answer is because of God.
All other attempts to explain creation without God are unreasonable and do not work.

"You can't use logic to prove God's existence because logic is a science, and sciences do not deal with anything other than deductions and demonstrations of the observable world. Again, God is not observable. The bible points out that God and God's kingdom cannot be discerned by observation, and only what exists can be observed."

Yet science does not explain why there is something rather than nothing.
 

Heart2Soul

Spiritual Warrior
Staff member
May 10, 2018
9,863
14,508
113
65
Tulsa
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Logic uses physical attributes to justify what it is addressing...such as taste, touch, smell, hearing and seeing.....
Anything pertaining to God is spiritual and cannot be logically explained....even the Bible says that no man has seen God and lived....it is through faith and belief in our heart that we know, that we know He exists.
Can evil exist without good? Can darkness exist without light? Answer these two questions and you have your answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amadeus

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
"Why would I need to prove God's existence in order to use logic?" You don't have to prove God's existence, but if you have no other explanation for logic your argument is over as God is the reason for logic so in using it without an alternative explanation you accept that there is a God.

This is nothing more than a tautology. You haven't given us anything other than to assume God as a Given. It's the fallacy of Begging the Question.

"The question boils down to why is there something rather than nothing?"
And the answer is because of God.
All other attempts to explain creation without God are unreasonable and do not work.

The problem is that you have yet to define what you mean by "God", and your definition will never suffice because you are must rely upon logic, imagination etc. which can never completely define anything. This is all the more impossible when it comes a word that has no referent. Ultimately, God is undefinable, ineffable, unimaginable, etc.

"You can't use logic to prove God's existence because logic is a science, and sciences do not deal with anything other than deductions and demonstrations of the observable world. Again, God is not observable. The bible points out that God and God's kingdom cannot be discerned by observation, and only what exists can be observed."

Yet science does not explain why there is something rather than nothing.

And neither can you, especially using baseless claims and assertions. Given that this is impossible, to then presume to explain or attempt to prove transcendence is even more pointless.

There is no effective difference between transcendence and non-existence. The bottom line is that nothing doesn't exist.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Just what do the biblical authors mean by "God" anyways? We all know that all gods are imaginary, right? So what makes the biblical god any different than, oh let's say the 330 million deities that populate the Hindu pantheon of gods?

Well for starters, the biblical authors distinguish their "God" from the rest by pointing out that if you're imagining anything about "God", you're not imagining God at all. You're just looking at the product of your own imagination. They even have a word for it. They call it idolatry.

An idol is any object that is viewed as a god itself. In other words, the biblical authors don't believe in objectifying "God" at all. They can imagine all sorts of gods just like the next guy, and they can admit that these gods are all imaginary. In fact, they would be the first to point out that they aren't gods at all. They're simply imaginary ideas. That's not what they mean by "God", and whatever meanings or definitions they do come up with aren't God either. They're just meanings and definitions for the word "God", which they will be the first to admit is simply a symbol for its meaning. Again, words and meanings are not gods; they're words with associated meanings.

Paul also points out that Christ isn't God when he refers to him as "the image of the invisible God"(Col.1:15). The word he uses for "image" is the Greek "eikon" which is where we get words like 'icon';"iconography"; "iconoclastic" etc. An icon should not be confused with an idol. As noted previously, an idol is worshipped as god, but an icon is a representation of God, and representations are not gods themselves.

Some would hasten to note that these two terms are synonymous, but this is only in relation to "things", and the biblical authors don't include God as any thing.

Given that the word "God" is essentially undefinable, unimaginable, and unknowable, thats what Jesus represents. He is an immanent representation of transcendence.

The biblical authors have a name for their "God" which they call "YHVH" which means "I will be", or "I will be what I will be", and what will be doesn't exist. Potentiality is not actuality.

They use words like "incomparable" or "there is none beside me". In other words, there is no referent for transcendence. There is no essential difference between the word "God" and nothing. There is no referent for God other than the word "God" itself.

The New Testament's gospel of John points out essentially the same thing. The introduction doesn't begin with "in the beginning was God". Why? Because God doesn't exist. He begins with "in the beginning was the word". That's all there is to begin with.

He then continues by pointing out that everything that exists is created(vs. 3), and at no time does he or anyone else ever suggest that God is created. Therefore, for those who are lacking even rudimentary reading comprehension skills, it logically follows that God doesn't exist. This is especially so given that the biblical authors view the objective world as the created world. So by definition, God can't objectively exist in the created world.

Paul reaffirms this in his letter to the Corinthians when he points out that God is the origin (not to be confused or conflated with "beginning") of all that exists while Christ is the means by which everything exists (1 Corinthians 8:6).

For those who insist in asking the question, "Who created God?, Paul's argument refutes that by pointing out that the origin of existence cannot logically exist without creating an infinite regression. So he has simultaneously admitted that God doesn't exist and denied the need for an infinte regression.

Biblical writers when the speak of God, they mean God. (Gen. 1:1) "In the beginning God". Simple as that.

All the rest of your post is just more bs.

Stranger
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Logic uses physical attributes to justify what it is addressing...such as taste, touch, smell, hearing and seeing.....

No. Logic uses abstraction. It is a branch of philosophy, not biology or physiology.

Anything pertaining to God is spiritual and cannot be logically explained....

And yet here you are using logic to point out a spiritual idea.

even the Bible says that no man has seen God and lived....it is through faith and belief in our heart that we know, that we know He exists.

It is by faith that one is known by God, and that is all that one can know. It doesn't then follow that God exists as this is simply a logical conclusion which you have already pointed out can't be used with regards to spiritual matters.

Can evil exist without good?

Does evil exist? If so please be so kind as to point out evil. We could just as easily ask, can something exist without nothing?

Can darkness exist without light?

How else could darkness exist than without light? You simply can't have darkness with the presence of light.

Now that we've settled that tangeant, is there a point to all of this?
 

Heart2Soul

Spiritual Warrior
Staff member
May 10, 2018
9,863
14,508
113
65
Tulsa
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No. Logic uses abstraction. It is a branch of philosophy, not biology

And yet here you are using logic to point out a spiritual idea.

It is by faith that one is known by God, and that is all that one can know. It doesn't then follow that God exists as this is simply a logical conclusion which you have already pointed out can't be used with regards to spiritual matters.



Does evil exist? If so please be so kind as to point out evil. We could just as easily ask, can something exist without nothing?



How else could darkness exist than without light? You simply can't have darkness with the presence of light.

Now that we've settled that tangeant, is there a point to all of this?

As Mr. SPOCK would always say this is illogical.
 
Last edited:

Heart2Soul

Spiritual Warrior
Staff member
May 10, 2018
9,863
14,508
113
65
Tulsa
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No. Logic uses abstraction. It is a branch of philosophy, not biology or physiology.



And yet here you are using logic to point out a spiritual idea.



It is by faith that one is known by God, and that is all that one can know. It doesn't then follow that God exists as this is simply a logical conclusion which you have already pointed out can't be used with regards to spiritual matters.



Does evil exist? If so please be so kind as to point out evil. We could just as easily ask, can something exist without nothing?



How else could darkness exist than without light? You simply can't have darkness with the presence of light.

Now that we've settled that tangeant, is there a point to all of this?
As much of a point as what you are making....but to simplify it for you the physical cannot exist without the spiritual....as it says in the Bible that which is seen was created by that which is unseen. (Paraphrased).
Hebrews 11 KJV
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Logic and illogic are still within the realm of philosophy. While one may view biology or physiology as logical in that they employ logic, they are not in and of themselves part of the field of philosophy, or theology for that matter.

It is to see the difference between words (logos) about God, the body, the senses, etc.

The senses do not employ logic to function. They are non-logical.