Must religion be logical?

Non sequitur.God didn't "equate" light with good. He said that a lot of things were good: the land and seas (Gen 1:10), the plants (Gen 1:12), the sun, moon and stars (Gen 1:18), the whales, etc. (Gen 1:21), the beast of the earth (Gen 1:25) and finally, everything that He had made (Gen 1:31).And notice that He called it "good", not "perfect". Anything "good" can be "better" or "worse" than anything alse that is "good".So you can't just say that light is good and darkness is evil. It's all good. (Of course, the degree of goodness is relative - it all depends on the situation.)The good/evil, true/false dichotomy doesn't work.Congratulations. You've just demonstrated that (your) religion is illogical.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That's what belief is: a substitute for knowing. When we don't know, we can only believe.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That isn't belief. It's wishful thinking - another step down the ladder."True" believers (and there are some on this thread) know that they don't know. They fill the gaps in their knowledge with what they "believe" are the most logical answers. Most important, they are willing to be wrong about their beliefs."False" believers (and there are some of them on this thread too) don't understand the difference between believing and knowing. They wish they knew and they delude themselves into thinking that they do know. They think that shouting, "I do! I do! I do believe in spooks!" is logic.Whistling in the dark is easier on the ears, but apparently not as satisfying.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Yeah, that's the rhetoric.
But I think a lot of them are just trying to convince themselves that they're convinced.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I haven't poked any holes in the Bible. I've quoted the Bible to show that you are wrong. You haven't addressed the point of my post at all.Here's what I quoted:

quote:

---

scottness writes:
He is God. He is good, and evil is evil. That is either true, or it isn’t. But we can’t have it both ways because in the very beginning God said, "Let there be light." And there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness (Genesis 1: 3-4)

---

I pointed out that your Genesis 1 quote has nothing to do with good versus evil - everything was good. Therefore, your statement that God is good and evil is evil does not follow from your own quote. Non sequitur.Once again, you demonstrate that your religion is illogical.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Still not paying attention? Tsk tsk.

quote:

---

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

---

Everything that He made was good - the darkness and the light.
There simply is no good/evil dichotomy in Genesis 1. No "trying" necessary. Your posts speak for themselves.
(Though it is a little embarassing to be seen picking on the poster-boy for illogic.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Irrelevant.You used a quote from Genesis 1 to "conclude" that God is good and evil is evil. I pointed out that that conclusion does not follow in any way, from your quote in Genesis 1.Now you're backtracking and trying to bring in quotes from all over creation to show that your conclusion is correct.But I'm not questioning your conclusion. I'm questioning your logic in reaching that conclusion. Based on your original logic from Genesis 1 alone, your conclusion does not follow. I haven't taken any position. I'm not necessarily even trying to show the flaws in your position. I'm trying to show the flaws in your route to that position.If you skip steps, if you take shortcuts, if The Answer^TM is your goal, you can miss a lot along the way.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You went from A to C without passing through B. That shortcut is a flaw in logic.I repeat: Based on your original logic from Genesis 1 alone, your conclusion does not follow. That's a shame. The point is not to prop up your position - it's to improve your methodology.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

From the Off-Topic Sea.The subject is the logic, not the subject of the logic.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC