awakened07
are you talking about logic or religion nor specific beliefs here? why the need to mixe everything is that logic?
you want to talk about logic or you want to argue about why you don't want to believe in something in particular (I insiste on particular because of all the examples you've took).
and YES of course logic is not about willing ... WE ALL KNOW THAT (or it's just stupid to just want to believe that's not logic - nothing to deny here) ... So now if you stay logic (check the definition in a dictionnary) can you answer this question (first read yourself back) and now tell me : what was your point exactly ? ...
logic is not about focusing or excluding (from one point of view - here the theology you know about or focus on), logic is about taking everything you can into consideration ... and while I read everywhere I want (just like you probably do) I've read a lot of stuff JUST here (so it's available to aknoledged - how many differents kind of beliefs did you took into consideration here to apply any reasonning to conclude this or that as just I THINK IT'S BULLS or just well I DON'T KNOW - and since you don't know, what is your logic exactly and what can you get out of this but that you don't know) how much kind of faiths and beliefs did you take into condiration in your reasoning here?
UNDENIABLE LOGIC. Some cherish it while others dismiss it. Which are you?
by nicolaou 78 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
RAF
-
nicolaou
sweetstuff:
Would you agree that logic can in fact change with knowledge?
The problem with logic is this..it changes the more knowledge we learn about the universe.
Logic never changes.
You were almost correct in that conclusions change 'the more knowledge we learn about the universe' but the logic used to reach those conclusions is constant. If the information we start with is faulty then logic will certainly produce a faulty result. Using logic is no guarantee of always reaching the proper conclusion - unless we also have true variables upon which to base that logical examination in the first place.
The Bible contains some accurate and verifiable information and a good deal of wholly provable false information (talking donkey anyone?) Logic proves - PROVES - that the miracles did not happen. If you invoke god to explain them by arguing that 'with god all things are possible' then no logical debate can be had with you. You could just as easily assert that a community of late 18th century Londoners have been living in a biodome on Mars for the past 150 years! How could I argue logically against that if your only counter is that god can do anything?
Logic never changes.
-
Shawn10538
I think that "Logic denyers" are immature. they cling emotionally to their beliefs that logic happens to disprove, very conveniently of course. What they forget is that, if God exists, then he invented logic, and he did so for our benefit TO USE as a template FOR TRUTH!!!! For something to be true, it must be logical. All of you here who are arguing against the absoluteness of logic ARE USING LOGIC TO MAKE YOUR POINTS!!!!!!!!!!!!! So you are inadvertantly saying that logic is absolute, even when you are saying that logic is not absolute. No one can take a single step, or utter a sentence without using logic. Grammar and logic are roughly the same terms, as subject and predicate MUST AGREE. You MUST use LOGIC TO SAY EVEN THE SIMPLEST SENTENCE!!!!!!!
-
Shawn10538
I challege all you logic denyers to disprove the statement that "if the premises are correct then deductive reasoning is true in the absolute sense." It is only when one of the premises are not true that deductive logic can be faulty.
Example: demonstrate how the following is NOT true: I dare ya!
P1: All Bobs are blue
P2: Jim is a Bob
Therefore Jim is blue
If someone here can disprove that example I will eat my hat.
Come on logic denyers!!! Take me up on it!!!! Spin your emotional diatribe!!!
Even in a dream, 2+2=4
Even in an alternate universe, Jim is still blue.
Even in God's vacuum of time and space, Jim is still blue, and 2+2 still =4. -
Awakened07
awakened07
are you talking about logic or religion nor specific beliefs here? why the need to mixe everything is that logic?
you want to talk about logic or you want to argue about why you don't want to believe in something in particular (I insiste on particular because of all the examples you've took).
and YES of course logic is not about willing ... WE ALL KNOW THAT (or it's just stupid to just want to believe that's not logic - nothing to deny here) ... So now if you stay logic (check the definition in a dictionnary) can you answer this question (first read yourself back) and now tell me : what was your point exactly ? ...
logic is not about focusing or excluding (from one point of view - here the theology you know about or focus on), logic is about taking everything you can into consideration ... and while I read everywhere I want (just like you probably do) I've read a lot of stuff JUST here (so it's available to aknoledged - how many differents kind of beliefs did you took into consideration here to apply any reasonning to conclude this or that as just I THINK IT'S BULLS or just well I DON'T KNOW - and since you don't know, what is your logic exactly and what can you get out of this but that you don't know) how much kind of faiths and beliefs did you take into condiration in your reasoning here?
Am I talking about logic or religion or specific beliefs? Why do I need to mix everything? - I was trying to get across that using logic in the way that has been done in this threadwith the examples given here will most often not work with someone who believes in these miracles, because the God of the Bible is supernatural. So to simply say "miracles are impossible, therefore they can't have happened" will not work as an argument against someone who believes in that God. I don't think I was mixing anything - I was following the conversation of the thread, and the examples given here, which were biblical. I may have been a little vague at first, I'll admit. That should answer your next question as well, about what I wanted to argue about.
and YES of course logic is not about willing ... WE ALL KNOW THAT (or it's just stupid to just want to believe that's not logic - nothing to deny here)
-Some believers do actually believe without any deep experiences, and some of them are scientists who believe in evolution etc., so they don't really have much to go on when it comes to God, other than faith. And according to Jesus (yes, I'm aware I'm still in the Bible), blind faith was something we should strive for. It was considered better than believing due to personal experiences and proof.
So my point was to - within the context of this thread - put forward the thought that logic, as it has been examplified here, will not necessarily work well in a conversation with a believer in a supernatural God. My post may have been put just after yours, but that didn't mean it was a reply or refutation to your posts.
I don't think we disagree as much as you think. I also think something is 'lost in translation' here and there.
-
nicolaou
Awakened,
. . . . . . to simply say "miracles are impossible, therefore they can't have happened" will not work as an argument against someone who believes in God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . logic, as it has been examplified here, will not necessarily work well in a conversation with a believer in a supernatural God
Absolutely right, but that doesn't mean the attempt shouldn't be made. Enlightenment rarely comes in a 'flash'. It happens slowly, but if people lock their minds in a box and are never reached by logical, rational debate it will not happen at all.
I once apologised for being a 'proselytiser for atheism', that may have been a mistake.
-
LittleToe
Nic:
I once apologised for being a 'proselytiser for atheism', that may have been a mistake.
It wasn't a mistake. It acknowledged that our personal logic can be flawed, premises can be untrue and compassion should still be a part of the process regardless of the strength of belief. The mistake would have been if you'd apologised for attempting to use logic...
-
nicolaou
Always a pleasure Ross.
I know I could be wrong, completely and utterly, yet I have this drive to share what I've learned. Am I supposed to repress that? Quell it for the sake of ...what? You are so right that 'compassion should still be a part of the process regardless of the strength of belief'. I hope I will always show that compassion and that kindly souls like you - notwithstanding your religious delusions and faulty perception of reality - will always be around to smack me over the head when I step over the line.
Nic' (getting ready to duck)
-
Paralipomenon
Example: demonstrate how the following is NOT true: I dare ya!
P1: All Bobs are blue
P2: Jim is a Bob
Therefore Jim is blue
If someone here can disprove that example I will eat my hat.How do you know all "Bobs" are blue?
How do you know Jim is a "Bob"?
If you are lying that Jim is a Bob, then he may not be blue. See? Logic is only as reliable as the credibility of the facts.
-
RAF
Oh my Awakened07 ... (Ooops - I'mSORRY - yeah I really feel that something had been lost in the translation on my side) but at least your view on logic is very clear to me now (thanks for answering).
Shawn10538 get a clue of what you are talking about
logic have nothing to do with mathematique but algrebra which is not exactly the same thing (it have to include - any I don't know for sur - or I know something is effective but I don't know what it is exactly for instance) and since you miss the real value of the variable you are left with an X and if you give X a personnal value it is still a personnal value not logic.