Why is the concept of god so illogical?

Answer 1

I don't see why it would be. See how do you explain the creation of the universe? Wouldn't "inteligent design" make more sense than the big bang? I mean how could it all just happen. At least with God we know that someone created everything, and isn't that how it works? Things don't just randomly happen. Everything I have seen has a reason for happening, even if I can't explain it. I like the Lion of Judah's analogies, thehy are probably the best I have seen. Also, what Rodeba 1 says is true also, there have been people going out tring to s\disprove the Bible but in the end finding more proof for it.

Answer 2

Because it is based on faith, which is the belief in something despite the absence of proof. However, I would be hesitant to call the concept of God illogical merely because science hasn't figured out his phone number yet. Although both the churchies and the non-chruchies are both trying to explain the nature of the universe, these concepts each serve a purpose. The problem comes when one of these concepts is used to try to explain everything, to put the other side down for their beliefs, or to impose their beliefs on the public at large.

Answer 3

It is not illogical. any more than it is illogical to think that your car has a creator, or your watch, or anything that is made. It is logical that someone or something created this complicated life here on earth. It is illogical to believe that even in millions of years that something could come from nothing.
Also the concept of a God is that he would be very powerful and be much more intelligent and powerful than a human, or logic would say what type of God would he be..

Answer 4

Depends on which "concept" of "god" you're referring to. If you're referring to the concept of a being that came into being without being created by something/somebody else, that's one argument, then there's the argument of such a being being omnipotent and omniscient.

Such concepts are illogical because they're not based upon anything but assumptions NOT taken from any "reality" that we can observe or even remotely speculate about. These concepts are "fantasy" or "faith-based" and fall apart in serious logical debate.

Don't know if you've seen me post for others but the book "The Quantum and the Lotus" aby Matthieu Ricard and Trinh Xuan Thuan is a great one to chew over if you're really into thinking about this... I keep posting it as a good reference in this debate because I had the same questions myself, adding in a critical, scientific thinking mind to my Buddhist studies. Maybe you'll enjoy it too.

_()_

Answer 5

Can you throw a bunch of lumber together and a house just appears? Can you throw a bunch of watch parts together in a box & shake it around, and a perfectly-built watch appears?
So on the reverse side, why would it be logical to think that the much more complex earth, solar system, or universe be any different?

Think about all of the things in nature that engineers & scientists try to copy in their own creations. Sure, many engineers & scientists are ingenius in the things they create, but if their 'copy' is so ingenius, how much more so is the original. So, then who made the much more ingenius, much more complex original?

Logically speaking, the concept that there is no god is the illogical one.

Answer 6

May be its illogical for you...why you generalize it for others as well.........u list all the points which make it illogical then you will get all the logical answers from people who believe in Him.....instead of giving illogical statement.

Answer 7

Here, I'll give you an example - the Omniscient/Creator vs. Free Will dichotomy, which will draw out a conclusion, to prove the concept is illogical (i.e. breaks the laws of logic).

Assume that there is a god. Assume this god has two properties:

1. The god is omniscient (knows everything - everything that was, is, and ever will be).
2. The god creates us individually.

We will add a third property of giving free will and draw a contradiction:

3. The god gives us 'free will'.

'Free will' is defined as:

( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=free+will )

'2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.'

---

The god, when creating us, must 'know' everything that will happen in our lives, by property one. It knows everything that we will face: every choice we will come across, and every choice we will make. It also creates us, with this knowledge ahead of time. Therefore, we are created (property 2), with pre-determined/pre-known choices (property 1), by a god.

This is a contradiction with property 3, by definition:

'(choice is) not simply determined by physical or divine forces.'

---

Therefore, the idea of a omniscient, creator god that gives out free will, is a contradiction by the above proof. q.e.d.

Answer 8

Because most people try to evaluate it with an inadequate instrument, i.e., their logical mind. It is not possible to properly evaluate the reality of an unlimited, spiritual realm with a limited, natural tool like the mind; we can only evaluate the facts and evidence gathered, but that gathering must be done by the human spirit, which was designed for just such an experience. The logical mind seeks empirical evidence, but even then is inclined to interpret the evidence in a way that allows the evaluator to fit said evidence into strongly held patterns of logic that won't stretch or challenge their assumed positions and theories.

There is such an abundance of evidence of God and of His spiritual realm in this day and age that anyone who denies the existence of either must be questioned on the method of their research. The very list of scientists, former skeptics and thinkers of human history who have declared their belief in God and documented their experiences with him demands an open-minded evaluation of their evidence. (i.e., former government cryptologist Dr. Chuck Missler, Astrophysicist Hue Ross, Louis Pasteur, Sir Isaac Newton, just to name a few).

Astrophysicist Hue Ross set out to disprove all religions as false and illogical based on what was known by scientific evidence. He dedicated 18 months to study the Bible and gather facts against it. At the end of the 18 months, he signed the back of the book, accepted Jesus as his Lord and Saviour, and established a ministry to scientists entitled "Reasons To Believe", the science Think Tank.

The volume of Biblical evidence of God's existence is absolutely astounding. I recommend Dr. Churck Missler's book, "Cosmic Codes" as a well researched, balanced approach to the biblical evidence for God. Also, Lee Stroebel's book, "The Case For a Creator," is a logical, fairminded discussion from the perspective of a former agnostic examining the evidence and logic that leads one to concluded that, yes, there is a God, and many logical men of science are agreeing based on the abundance of evidence.

Answer 9

Only to an illogical mind.

Answer 10

It's not completely illogical, it's just that there are better explanations for the mysteries of the universe that don't rely on unseen, supernatural forces. It's not as logical as disbelief.