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

by nicolaou 78 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  sweetstuff

  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.

  Dear Nic,

  If the conclusion can be faulty, then logic can in fact change with knowledge. If logic never changes, and is absolutely infallible, then the conclusion would never be incorrect. If a scientist tomorrow found a fossil that totally disproved the accepted theory of evolution, and altered its basis dramatically, would not the logic used to investigate further discoveries also change?

  No one can prove (you can conclude, deduce, run theories) something without absolute undeniable facts. I can prove my children exist, scientists can prove DNA exists. Can you prove that something that supposedly happened a couple thousand years ago, without a doubt, did not occur? You are using the logic you possess to deduce to the best of your knowledge that a, b or c did not occur, that it is impossible according to logic. That's not proven fact Nic, to prove something means that all possible variables have been utterly and completely investigated and exhausted, leaving no doubt to the result. I never said there was some God (funny how you get lumped into the God is all powerful mold) who can do anything and everything, what I said, was logically, I can admit the possibility that perhaps there are things humans cannot at this time understand. With changing knowledge what is accepted as logical also changes. I wonder if all the great inventors, explorers, down through time had listened to people saying what they proposed was not logical, was in fact impossible, if we would have the same progress in the world.

  Down Tiger,

  Sweetstuff
• 

  nicolaou

  Paralipomenon. That is an astonishingly ignorant reply and completely unfair to Shawn. You are creating an irrelevant diversion (by questioning Shawns parameters) in an attempt to discredit his challenge. Replace those parameters with neutral terms and try again:

  All X,s are blue
  P is an X
  Therefore P is blue
  
  No waffling now Para'. Is the logic correct?

  Sweetstuff. You are missing the point about logic. It is not knowledge or information or understanding, it is only a mechanism - nothing more.

  If a scientist tomorrow found a fossil that totally disproved the accepted theory of evolution, and altered its basis dramatically, would not the logic used to investigate further discoveries also change?

  No. If such a discovery were made then logic would indeed disprove the accepted theory of evolution. Logic is your friend. If aliens were to land in Milton Keynes then logic would force us to accept the evidence of our eyes and conclude that we are not alone in the Universe.

  No one can prove . . . . . . something without absolute undeniable facts.

  So you'd accept that having those absolute and undeniable facts would allow us to prove something? For example, it is absolutely undeniable that a 1st century virgin could not have become pregnant without human sperm. This therefore proves that Jesus, if he was Mary's son, also had a human father.

  Are you willing to accept this logical conclusion to your own argument sweetstuff?
• 

  Paralipomenon

  nicolaou, I'm not waffling at all.
  
  All X,s are blue
  P is an X
  Therefore P is blue
  
  How do you establish that X's are blue and how do you establish P is an X?
  
  So I'll create an identical logic puzzle.
  
  All women are men.
  Lee is a woman.
  Therefore Lee is a man.
  
  I challenge you equally to refute the logic of that statement. We both know it is incorrect on many levels, but it is still as logically correct as the first example.
  
  Therefore validating the source is necessary when trusting statements of logic. Do you deny this?
  
  Did my logic correctly identify Lee's gender? No, it created a paradox. Therefore logic would dictate that the source should be first validated before the logic can be validated.
  
  Call that ignorant and unfair if you like, but it's the plain simple truth.
  
  I find your stance on logic, illogical. :p
• 

  RAF

  All X,s are blue
  P is an X
  Therefore P is blue

  This is LOGIC ONLY when you WHEN kNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT X and P to compare them as being EQUAL IN THE MATTER - since all X are BLUE from where do you state that P is an X? since P is not X.
• 

  sweetstuff

  Sweetstuff. You are missing the point about logic. It is not knowledge or information or understanding, it is only a mechanism - nothing more.

  If a scientist tomorrow found a fossil that totally disproved the accepted theory of evolution, and altered its basis dramatically, would not the logic used to investigate further discoveries also change?

  No. If such a discovery were made then logic would indeed disprove the accepted theory of evolution. Logic is your friend. If aliens were to land in Milton Keynes then logic would force us to accept the evidence of our eyes and conclude that we are not alone in the Universe.

  No one can prove . . . . . . something without absolute undeniable facts.

  So you'd accept that having those absolute and undeniable facts would allow us to prove something? For example, it is absolutely undeniable that a 1st century virgin could not have become pregnant without human sperm. This therefore proves that Jesus, if he was Mary's son, also had a human father.

  Are you willing to accept this logical conclusion to your own argument sweetstuff?

  So, let me get this straight... logic is only a mechanism and is based on niether knowledge or understanding. Matter of fact, it requires niether....then logic is a mechanism individual to the person using it, if it requires no knowledge, no information then on what do you base your own conclusion that Mary got pregnant and therefore must have had human sperm do the job? Is it not the knowledge that human conception requires male sperm?? OH, so you are saying if you did not know that, you could still use the "mechanism" of logic to conclude your point? My bad.

  What I am willing to accept as a logical conclusion is that while I do not see how it would be possible for a child to be concieved without the use of human sperm, that conclusion is based on the assumption that God isn't real and has no supernatural abilities. Therefore, its a theory, not undeniable fact.
• 

  nicolaou

  Para'

  Therefore validating the source is necessary when trusting statements of logic. Do you deny this?

  I don't deny this. Of course it's true which is why I said you were being unfair to Shawn. In formulae like these the premises are accepted to be true - the test is to see if the conclusion logically follows. Let's try one last time (while trying to nail down any possible wriggle room).

  All X,s are blue
  All P's are also X's
  Therefore all P's are blue

  This is true logical argument with a sound conclusion.

  Para:
  
  So I'll create an identical logic puzzle.
  
  All women are men.
  Lee is a woman.
  Therefore Lee is a man.

  This is not an identical argument because, although your logical construction is sound, the opening premise is patently false thus, although you have a logical form of argument the conclusion is not correct. (That is why it is useful to use neutral terms like letters, numbers or symbols).

  RAF: Sometimes I can be really thick! Reading one of your earlier posts just made me realise that you are French Baby Face! Cool! I missed you but you were here all the time! Why the name change?

  Sweetface:

  that conclusion is based on the assumption that God isn't real and has no supernatural abilities. Therefore, its a theory, not undeniable fact.

  'Therefore' is a word you have no right to use until you have proven the premise it is founded on, in your case that god is real and has supernatural abilities. Good luck with that.
• 

  Shawn10538

  First let me recommend that you all read the book, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric by Kahane. This book was the first book that started me on my journey away from the borg. Kahane has written many books on logic and philosophy. If you take a college course in philosophy or studies in logic chances are good you will have to buy one of his books for the course.
  
  Deductive reasoning is an example of logic. Logic may or may not be able to prove a premise is true. But, IF AND ONLY IF THE PREMISES ARE TRUE IS THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION TRUE as well.
  
  In this case:
  All women are men.
  Lee is a woman.
  Therefore Lee is a man.
  IF THE PREMISE THAT ALL WOMEN ARE MEN IS TRUE AND THE PREMISE THAT LEE IS A WOMAN IS ALSO TRUE THEN IT MUST BE TRUE THAT LEE IS A WOMAN. There is no debate about it. It is an absolutely true conclusion in the absolute sense of truth. It is literally PROVEN true by the equation above.
  
  BUT, and this is a big but... Is it true that all women are men? No. And logic does not help us to prove or disprove that statement. That statement does not exist in the realm of logic, or better said, you wouldn't ask a logician(?sp) if it is true that all men are women, you would ask a medical doctor most likely. Science might tell us if it is true, but logic, no. Again you would have to ask a doctor or another scientist to prove the statement wrong or right. Logic is only helpful to reach the conclusions based on putting two complementary premises together in a sort of mathematical sentence and adding or subtracting the statements bringing us to a sum or difference, in any case a conclusion. A logical sentence is only as reliable as the truth of the premises. If any of the premises are wrong in any way at all, you have to throw the whole logical conclusion out the door.
  
  If you are wondering about the truth of the premises and how we came to know that they are true THEN YOU WANT TO HAVE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONVERSATION THAT HAS REALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH LOGIC AT ALL. So in this thread you are officially OFF TOPIC if you are worried about how all men can be women. If you want to know that or how we came to know that P or X is blue you must investigate the question WITHIN THE FIELD OF STUDY THAT APPLIES TO THE FINDING OF THE ANSWER. I'm not saying you won't use logic along the way in your investigation, but to find the sex of a person just isn't the business of the philosopher or logician.
  
  So, again, to sum up, a logical conclusion is only as true as the premises that feed into it. If one of the premises is false in any way, then the whole line of reasoning must be false. That is why it can be said that something is logical, yet untrue. The statement above that Lee is a man is absolutely logical if the premises are true, regardless of what process you used to establish their truth. What makes it NOT true is the fact that one or both of the premises are untrue. Other than that small detail, it is a sound deductive statement within itself. But if the premises were TRUE and you said "Lee is a woman" at the end instead of a man, then you would be absolutely wrong, and provably so. It would be illogical to say that Lee is a woman and Logical to say Lee is a man IF THE PREMISES ABOVE ARE TRUE.
• 

  Paralipomenon

  Shawn, I think we are on the same wavelength for the basis of logic, but I don't feel I'm offtopic.

  Here is nicolaou's topic:

  Excuse me while I wrestle this topic back to the very simple premise it started on - logic.

  Did Jesus gather up more bread and fish than he started with? Could a 1st century virgin have given birth to a son? Can a biologically dead human be revived to life by a mere command?

  There have been other topics on the subject of faith recently that have attacked believers with the insults of the playground. I'm trying real hard not to fall into that trap but all the obfuscation and irrelevant diversions can wear a bit thin. How about a straight answer for once?!

  It is not logical to believe that Jesus or Peter walked on water - do you believe it happened? If so then you have thrown logic and rational thinking ability out of the window.

  Logic proves - PROVES - that the miracles did not happen.

  That is the basis of my argument. We do not, and can not at this time acquire enough knowledge to validate the basis for this claim. Therefore any logical deductions are just speculation.

  nicolaou is trying to use an example of a logic statement that has all the aspects proven (your example) as support for the logical deduction that miracles did not happen.

  That is faulty logic.

  I read the gist of this thread as follows:

  All X,s are blue
  All P's are also X's
  Therefore miracles did not happen.

  If this is truly a discussion of raw logic and deductions then I don't think the two of us would have any disagreement, but I can't use an air tight example of logic to support a statement that doesn't offer any validation of the facts. If you wish to support the OP's logical assertments, I'm asking for a validation of facts. Your example doesn't mirror that of nicolaou's and as such cannot be used as a fair comparison.
• 

  Terry

  I really don't mean to be personally insulting, but; this discussion has the look of monkeys on typwriters.

  Logic is a demand for a chain of evidence in which each step contains no inconsistancy.

  Contradiction is a red flag.

  All these silly syllogisms don't add up to a pile of rancid bean sprouts!

  ANYTHING can be asserted as true in a syllogism. So, leave off, will you?

  Religious people don't stick with reality and try and drag everybody else into their fantasy world.

  Religion and Faith is a deuces wild game in which anything is anything and nothing is something.

  When you demand that believer's in King's X and deuces wild play by some rules of reason and reality you get them all jumpy and wild and they'll start ranting like mad hatters!

  Would you discuss Shakespeare with a Hottentot? If the Hottentot doesn't like Shakespeare is there any point in arguing his point of view with him? No!

  We have a lot of Hottentots arguing a lot of Shakespeare here on this thread pretending that their opinion has equal validity.

  Deaf people shouldn't be music critics.

  I can't take it anymore! I'm going to go have a hot chocolate!
• 

  sweetstuff

  Sweetface:

  that conclusion is based on the assumption that God isn't real and has no supernatural abilities. Therefore, its a theory, not undeniable fact.

  'Therefore' is a word you have no right to use until you have proven the premise it is founded on, in your case that god is real and has supernatural abilities. Good luck with that.

  First of all Obi Wan, its Sweetstuff, not Sweetface.

  Second, I can use therefore whenever I chose, last time I checked you weren't the literal right of use police. Third, I never said my premise was that God is real and has supernatural abilities, what I said, if you actually would read is that my assumption that it was not possible was based on the belief that God was NOT real and had no supernatural powers.

  Nic + Assumption = Good luck with that.

  Anyone have any theories on this equation?