1

I am from India. Here, in all the sects of religion descended from Hinduism, we had a concept of 'Shaastraarth'.

This was basically a debate between learned men of different religions or learned men of different schools of thought from the same religion. There would be an impartial judge, and the judge, the audience, or they themselves would ask each other questions. Both of them had to reply on the basis of their 'Shaastras' or their holy and/or philosophical texts.

It was perfectly logical. Whoever lost would have to change their and their disciples' school of thought or religion to that of the winner. Search 'Adi Shankaracharya' for an example. My question is, is there a set of axioms that can answer every question we throw at it?

This is when we assume Godel's Incompleteness theorems to be false, as it was proved true in conditions which forced it to be. I find it sketchy. Even if it is logically sound, let us not talk about it. I don't like thinking about how mathematics is not absolute.

P.S. I have no background in philosophy, I just had this question and I thought this site was the best place for it.

Edit: I now have another question. How did they get these done?

If an atheist has a debate with a theist, the scriptures of the theist will obviously say that there is a god, and the beliefs of the atheist will lead him to say that there is no god. We have a conflicting set of axioms.

Edit2: I solved my own doubt in the comments.

Improve this question
19
  • 1
    I do not think so. Two comments: (i) every argument needs basic assumptiuons: postulates. Thus, the conclusion of a logical argument depends on our "attitude" (belief) about the assumptions. Maybe it relies of faith. And (ii) a logical argument can show that the "theory" (the religion) is contradcitory: but this is already known for quite all existing religions. Commented Mar 11, 2025 at 13:54
  • Having said that, also Medieval West had a long tradition of "logical debates" regarding philosophical issues. See Medieval disputations as well as Aquinas' Quaestiones Disputatae de Veritate. Commented Mar 11, 2025 at 14:00
  • 1
    Your comment shows clearly the point: "the scriptures of the theist will obviously say that there is a god". Yes, and this is not a proof, it is an assertion whose ONLY ground is faith. Commented Mar 11, 2025 at 15:02
  • 1
    @MauroALLEGRANZA Give me one mathematical or physical system without any base axioms. Commented Mar 11, 2025 at 15:27
  • 1
    As I've been saying a lot today: there are multiple sets of postulates that claim to explain everything. They usually have mutual contradictions. Commented Mar 16, 2025 at 0:15

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
3

  1. In many cases people are socialized in the religion which is preeminent in their home culture. It is difficult to release oneself from this imprint on the basis of rational thinking.

  2. One can consider your question from a historical point of view asking: Did people convert after they heard perfectly logical arguments that destroy their religion?

    There is no general answer. History shows all types of reaction: The conversion, the attempt to harmonize faith and philosophy, the split of the personal worldview, …

  3. A blog like philosophy.stackexchange shows a pluralism of worldviews and enables a cross-cultural discussion of different śāstras (शास्त्र) and rational approaches.

Improve this answer
9
  • 1
    Your third point would be rather nice, but no one is educated enough in their own religion to know its philosophies. All we know about are the rituals. Commented Mar 11, 2025 at 14:09
  • 1
    Which I now realize crushes my question. Wow. Philosophy is confusing. Eh, my question was hypothetical. Commented Mar 11, 2025 at 14:09
  • 3
    @Supernerd411 "but no one is educated enough in their own religion to know its philosophies. All we know about are the rituals." That may be true for some, but it's too broad to be correct for all. Commented Mar 11, 2025 at 14:44
  • 4
    @Supernerd411 why does one religion need to be supreme? Do you hold that there is only one 'correct' final answer to "What is the meaning of Life, the Universe, Everything?" Commented Mar 11, 2025 at 15:40
  • 2
    @WeatherVane well yes to that specific question there is only one correct final answer: 42. Though to many other questions there is no such final answer. Commented Mar 11, 2025 at 15:45
3

is there a set of axioms that can answer every question we throw at it?

Suppose we have such an axiom, say Axiom E. We suppose that Axiom E can answer every question we throw at it.

Not, it cannot. For example:

How do you prove that Axiom E is true without first assuming that it is true?

The way that logic works, human logic, there is no logical answer to this question. We can certainly assume that Axiom E is true and conclude from this assumption that Axiom E is true, but, as Aristotle would have said, this would be a circular reasoning, and therefore a logical fallacy. Not a proof, then.

Perfectly logical argument:

We do not know of any undeniable empirical evidence that any religion is devinely inspired, or that any god exists. So, we have no reason to believe that a religion is devinely inspired, or that a god exists.

This argument is well-known and presumably well-understood. Doesn't seem to do the job, though.

Here is one example of the confusion around the idea of God:

God is beyond logic.

No. If God does not exist, He is nothing and so certainly not beyond logic!

However, the idea that God is beyond logic suggests that believers just prefer to ignore that not God but the idea of God is beyond logic, i.e., illogical--because, if the idea of God is the idea of an omnipotent being, then it is illogical.

When you reach this point, no logical argument is likely to convince you. However, it is not God who is beyond logic, it is your idea of God.

However, someone prepared to believe that an illogical concept has a reference in the real world is presumably prepared to believe anything. Your choice.

Another example:

We have no reason to believe that a god doesn't exist

It depends on the particular god. The idea of an omnipotent God is logically inconsistent. That is one very good reason to believe that there is no such a God.

Other gods? It depends how you define them. If you think of one dog that it is your god, then your god exists, but who is going to care?

Gods are only important if they have powers. This explains that competing religions had a conceptual arms race which eventually resulted in the illogical and therefore self-defeating concept of omnipotent God.

Improve this answer
2
  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on Philosophy Meta, or in Philosophy Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. Commented Mar 12, 2025 at 16:08
  • Maybe add why do you think "The idea of an omnipotent God is logically inconsistent." I see this for the first time. First why is it logically inconsistent? But also why do you think everything can be explained with logic? Certainly many things happen not based on logic. Also there are theorems proving that not all problems have a logical solution. So it is logical that logic can explain only part of what is. Commented Mar 12, 2025 at 20:22
3

"Is there a set of axioms that can answer every question we throw at it?"

No finite set of axioms will be able to answer the above question about itself, which is why the answer is: "Certainly not."

That you didn't want to think about it is, unfortunately, the very reason you must. Philosophy is only relevant if it goes where it smarts.

Improve this answer
3
  • 1
    What if your one axiom is that there can be no ultimate answers? I think it covers everything you can throw at it. Commented Mar 12, 2025 at 23:42
  • 1
    @ScottRowe It means "No", which is what I said, doesn't it? Commented Mar 13, 2025 at 8:43
  • Tbh this is the only correct answer. OP should have just bit the bullet and learned the relevant logic. "Assume Godel's incompleteness theorems to be false" makes about as much sense as "assume 1+1=5". Incidentally, if they understood what the theorem actually says, not the pop-phi nonsense non-mathematicians sometimes describe it as, they'd understand their question has a perfectly sensible answer. No finitistic system can solve the halting problem, and therefore humans (finitistic systems) cannot know everything. The set of all true statements may still exist, it's just not computable. Commented Mar 30, 2025 at 2:01
2

It depends

For one it depends on the religion in question. For example those following the abrahamistic religions will probalby not be swayed by pure logic, because the abrahamistic image of god transcends logic. God is beyond logic just like he is beyond cause and effect. So logic can't "defeat" god since it does not apply to him.

Other religions might be more likely to engage in discussions based on logic and adjust their views depending on the outcome. For example the famous quote from the Dalai Lama:

If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.

Since science is based on logic, it can be assumed the his stance also applies to being disproven by logic.

Though it also highly depends on the individual. Some christians might engage in logical discussions and don't believe that god is completly beyond religion, some buddhists on the other hand might refute logical arguments against their believes.

Improve this answer
4
  • 3
    logic can't "defeat" god indeed. If god doesn't exist then there is no question. If god does exist we can only defeat our preconceptions and the rules we impose on god. Commented Mar 11, 2025 at 15:45
  • If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. That's irrelevant, since the question is about god. Commented Mar 11, 2025 at 17:25
  • If something can be refuted or altered by science then it is basically part of science. Commented Mar 12, 2025 at 23:46
  • 1
    @ScottRowe but we may not no whether science will be able to refute or alter something yet. imagine being back in ancient greece with the belief that zeus is making lightning and thunder. people didn't know yet that there would be a scientific explanation for that. I think it would be inaccurate to tell those ancient greeks that zeus is part of science. It became part of science later. Just like that the rebirth of buddhism might or might not be eventually proveable/refuteable by science or not. We don't know yet whether it will be part of science. Commented Mar 13, 2025 at 9:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.