Fanman wrote:Jklint,
Logic is not the perfect tool though, for example it cannot the answer the simple question of what came first, the chicken or the egg? Faith attempts to answer the question by asserting that God made the chicken, but the atheist declares there is no scientific evidence of that! And the question remains unanswered...
How you view God is your choice, but I think that having faith and learning about God in earnest provides a pure relationship with him. And demonstrates that God values us individually.
The chicken and the egg is not an example of the flaws of pure logic. We must discuss this topic in our capacity for argument which is built on logic. Blind faith (example being god made chicken) is by definition illogical, which might explain a disregard for logical thought.
Building on the pure relationship argument though, perhaps god has not the capacity to determine which humans are of greater value to him according to their degree of illogic. He must rely on his absence to prove the value of the illogical persons via faith. Although the problem with this is that it supposes god is not omnipotent, which is a condition of the existence of god as I understand it. So logically the only other option is he does not value us. This holds unless you disregard logic, in which case we cannot have this discussion, since our discourse is based on logic.
-- Updated April 17th, 2012, 3:37 am to add the following --
Xris wrote:An illogical conclusion can not be secured by scripture that recognises the illogical reasoning it attempts to overcome. In my opinion if god made an appearance you would not recognise it. It has no human image that we could recognise. How can a god that creates a worm that eats into a child's brain be seen as anything we could explain or understand. The only god that is constantly with us is nature. If nature was engineered by a sentient creature what a arogant and cruel creature it is.
I agree, although your comments are logical, which makes them unacceptable for a person with faith in the existence of god. God would not be able to be recognized, but furthermore, requiring proof of his existence is the antithesis of how god values humans - via a capacity for illogical thought, via faith. If we are in his likeness, or even if the world is in his likeness, he would not have created so much suffering. Therefore he is not like us or this world, and cannot be represented in this world. Therefore, further to it not being in his best interests for ascertaining human value, it is not possible for god to prove himself.
But all of this is redundant for two reasons. Firstly, if this was to support an argument for god, the fact it is based on logic negates the value of the argument. Secondly, if this argument was to be used against god, we would assume there is no god in the first place without proof.