UNDENIABLE LOGIC. Some cherish it while others dismiss it. Which are you?

by nicolaou 78 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  Can 1 apple plus 1 apple ever equal 3 apples?

  There is a dirty little secret to this.

  The propagandist has to undercut your ability to understand simple things by first disabling your alarm system which raises a red flag.

  This is done one of several ways:

  1. Reframe the simplest example by changing the context.

  2.Get you to change your definitions.

  3.Get you to doubt your ability to think accurately by undercutting your self-confidence.

  4.Demonstrate other errors and extrapolate it into "everything is error"

  5.Attack the person rather than the argument

  Certain philosophers are used as agents of erosion in achieving this end.

  If you will accept that:

  1.You are a miserable wretched, sinful, imperfect, ignorant soul. Consequently, you can't trust your own mind or reasoning.

  2.You can't trust your senses and there is no knowledge which is certain. Consequently, what you think you know; you can't know.

  3. You must trust a "higher" authority outside of time and space (or proof!)

  4.You must surrender to the supernatural (mystical or superstious "source" of truth).

  This is the methodology.

  You'll see it everywhere.

  Remain skeptical and demand proof and you'll avoid being convinced that 1+1=3.
• 

  Terry

  Logic is relative. Proven? Exactly what has been proven that makes faith defy logic?

  Logic is a tool which uses non-contradiction and chain of cause/effect to produce an untainted result.

  Faith is the relaxing of any testable standard by relying on an assertion which looks and feels good but cannot be verified.

  An example:

  God is asserted to be the highest standard of morality. Right?

  Faith says: copy God's standard of morality and you will always do Good.

  Logic says this: God has ordered child murder. If you copy God's behavior you will also condone child murder. Child murder is immoral. Therefore; you cannot adop God's standard as moral.

  See how that works?
• 

  sweetstuff

  God is asserted to be the highest standard of morality. Right?

  Faith says: copy God's standard of morality and you will always do Good.

  Logic says this: God has ordered child murder. If you copy God's behavior you will also condone child murder. Child murder is immoral. Therefore; you cannot adop God's standard as moral.

  See how that works?

  According to who? The bible? Not everyone who has faith in something higher than themselves or the unexplainable subscribes to the archtypical religious beliefs. So its pretty assumptive to assert this or that is what faith says. Maybe you are viewing it from simply a christian angle because of the example of Jesus and the fishes. I was referring in fact to having faith in i.e. intelligent design.
• 

  Terry

  I was referring in fact to having faith in i.e. intelligent design.

  FAITH only becomes an option when evidence fails, proof is not available, assertions aren't backed by demonstrations and the emotional desire for the the thing believed is overwhelming the rational need for support.

  Logic deals with reality. Logic deals with facts. Logic deals with proof. Logic deals with evidence. If you have those things it isn't necessary to invoke FAITH.

  You are free to define FAITH in a way that refutes these statements. But, if you do; you will be using LOGIC!
• 

  Paralipomenon

  Logic CAN deal with reality. Logic CAN deal with facts. Logic CAN deal with proof. Logic CAN deal with evidence.
  
  Definition: any logical system that abstracts the form of statements away from their content in order to establish abstract criteria of consistency and validity.
  
  There is nothing in the process of logic that assures a correct outcome. In a legal trial, both sides use logic to arrive at the conclusion that one party is guilty/innocent respectively.
  
  In fact, logic requires faith that the facts you are basing it on are correct.
• 

  sweetstuff

  Logic deals with reality. Logic deals with facts. Logic deals with proof. Logic deals with evidence. If you have those things it isn't necessary to invoke FAITH.

  Would you agree that logic can in fact change with knowledge?
• 

  RAF

  I have to join Paralipomenon here (globally) but will try to go further on this ...

  in first emphasing on what nrgnbk said
  That's why dogmatism of any kind is alienating and counterproductive.

  dog·ma (dôg'm?, dog'-) pronunciation
  n., pl. -mas or -ma·ta (-m?-t?).

  1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
  2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See synonyms at doctrine.
  3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).

  [Latin, from Greek, opinion, belief, from dokein, to seem, think.]

  Now about logic

  reality (the one you know) is not logic in itself if you only take in consideration what is reality scienfically for instance (why? because we none of us knows everything about reality - even scientists) that's simple to understand ... Logic is related to reasonning not to what we can prove, it have to include from the individual who wants to be or stay logic, to not deny what he knows to be effective wheter there are proofs or not.

  ortherwise the logic is just not logic anymore but a denial ... wanting to be rational at any rate (in thinking that rational is related to what we can explain scienfically is not really rationnal - it's just an effort of denying that there are things that whe can't explain - and that's rational logic if not that's when people in wanting to be rational becomes irationnal ... here are the definition of logic and rational

  formal logic
  n.

  The study of the properties of propositions and deductive reasoning by abstraction and analysis of the form rather than the content of propositions under consideration.

  if you state that logic is based on reality (the one that you have access to) you refute propositions

  ra·tion·al (rash'?-n?l) pronunciation
  adj.

  1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
  2. Of sound mind; sane.
  3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See synonyms at logical.
  4. Mathematics. Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers.

  A denial is not sane!!! it's not related to reason ...

  So logic and rational is absolutly not realated to what any state as really for being something that you can prove ... but only something that you can't exclude as a proposition in the reasonning from what you know (experienced in fact since what you know is related to your experience).
• 

  RAF

  Also still about the logic even mathematical it still depends on what you are talking about :

  So that when even 1+1 is not always equal to 3 it depends of what means each 1 and what the result is about (wants to demonstrate) ... if each 1 is a human being (but one is a man and the other one is a woman) and if the result wants to demonstrate how much kids they can have together ... the result is X (= whatever depends on which couple) - that pure logic and still mathematical (but as you can see the number can't always be the same).
• 

  Awakened07

  As much as I'm a great fan of logic and naturalistic views, I don't think you can apply logic and scientific, physical facts to God, because God is supernatural in nature (most Gods, anyway). The logic you use in this thread is logic that works well in the material, observable, testable universe. But no matter what scientific facts you may come up with, or what sharp logic, you will only get a point here and there in the conversation with a believer. The Joker in the deck will always be "God did it that way and God can do anything". Virgin birth? Not a problem at all for God, the creator of everything. Feed 5000 with a small amount of food? Not a problem for God (although as you mentioned, he probably had to 'beam' it over from somewhere else, since he was done creating). Walking on water, making water into vine? Not a problem for God. Healing the sick? Not a problem.

  Completely illogical for a human being to be able to do any of these things, but not a God, because he is supernatural (outside of the natural laws). God - if he exists - may not be able to make 1+1=3, but he could influence your mind into thinking it makes sense that 1+1=3. He could manipulate the natural laws. So you can't really use logic to attack those miracle examples directly. You have to start from the bottom up, so to speak. For instance, you may show a Bible believer that the Bible can't possibly be the infallible word of God. But - backed severely enough into a corner, a Bible believer may eventually agree to say that the Bible isn't infallible, and isn't as directly inspired by God as previously thought. So what you're left with in the end then is a believer with a very general belief in the God of the Bible, and a belief that God's thoughts are still found there (somewhere between the lines).

  And then you're back to using logic against something supernatural again. If people choose to believe in God for no other reason in the end than that they want to, you can't do much to change their mind by using logic.

  But, if you get to a point where the person no longer believes in the Bible (or any other religious text defining God), but simply in a 'some-mysterious-force-out-there' God, then you could start applying logic again to explain how it's weird how God has done things the way he has throughout mankind's history (hmm... I feel like I'm conducting a reverse Bible study here...).

  But you could still get stuck with "I'm sure God has his reasons that I have no way of understanding - who am I to judge God?".

  So logic and physical evidence can take you so far, but it will eventually still be up to the individual person if he/she is willing to use that in order to stop believing in God, or apply faith (which is more like a gut feeling) and keep believing no matter what - maybe simply caused by an experience that to that person was very real. That experience could perhaps be explained away too - but they choose to apply faith (the "gut feeling"), and see it as evidence (to them) of a supernatural presence.

  And they should have that right - even if I personally may think they'd be wrong. Kinda like I would advocate the right to free speech, even though I might disagree with the statements some people make when they exercise that right.
• 

  nvrgnbk

  God understands us atheists.

  I even think He likes us. At least the ones that aren't total assholes.