Logic

[nietzsche]

I just wondered how many people thought that logical= a correct argument. Not as many as I thought, but based on how many people toss around the word logical I was expecting a bit more.

Richard Feynman says in one of his non-scientific books that we talk about what we don't know for sure, that if we knew everything about something, we wouldn't talk about it.

A lot of stuff it is uncertain to all of us, and then we embark in making the best decisions for all of us (ethics) given what we know, and certainly we live in a democratic world and every opinion should have the same value, but we have been making a lot of progress in understanding and taming the world by using a positivistic approach and moving away from stuff like saint wars, inquisitions, the crusades, religious guilt and all the bad things that religion has given us.

And you got to respect everyone, every person is valuable now. So you can't say that a homosexual shouldn't get married because god says so. You can raise the question that they might be not the best growing up enviroment for a kid, and that's up for a debate, but don't be alarmed if someone says your argument "because god said so" is non valid.

[jonesthecurl]

How 'bout this one?


The universe must have been created
Only God can create.
Therefore the Bible is true.



Does that work, or might there be a flaw in the logic, the premises, or the conclusion?

All of the above.

Its what atheists try to claim theists use for logic, not the truth.

begin with:
The universe is. Was it created or always here? We don't actually know.

Well, my chop-logic looks remarkably like what puppydog is saying.

But let's take "the universe is". Now I've been through this logical exercise before, but let's try again.

Now firstly, you give two possibilities - "always here" or "created".
No. Not the only possibilities.

If the universe had no beginning, there was no creation.
Obviously.

If the universe did have a beginning, there can be no cause.
Why not?

Because that was the first thing ever.
There was no time before that.

With no time, there IS no "before".
Logically there can be nothing before the first thing.
Because it's the first thing. Not the second thing.

Conclusion: if the universe had no beginning, there was no creation.
If it did have a beginning there was no creation.

Please note this is a conclusion not drawn from Big Bang, Evolution, Atheism, or a Holy Book.
Just an observation that if everything had a beginning, that is by definition the beginning.


Now you can give me stuff about God being "outside time" if you like. But I don't see where or how it is necessary, nor where it fits into the above.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, duh, jonesthecurl. God works in mysterious ways, as do women.


inb4 natty dread: "BIGOTRY!!!"

[jonesthecurl]

Well, duh, jonesthecurl. God works in mysterious ways, as do women.


inb4 natty dread: "BIGOTRY!!!"

I don't think God, or indeed the concept of god, works at all, mate.


Women -well, here's a lovely quote from R.A.H.

Listen, son. Most women are damn fools and children. But they've got more range than we've got. The brave ones are braver, the good ones are better — and the vile ones are viler, for that matter

He may well be right.

I would go on to add that the interesting ones are more interesting too.

[comic boy]

And that, fundamentally is why the atheistic arguments fail, and why it is so important for some militant atheists to disprove the idea of God.

Because, when you start with the idea that the basis of what many people believe is just false, then it is easy to declare their thinking illogical.

To someone who has never seen a "vision", or heard what they believe to be a true voice of God, the whole idea that it could happen may seem ridiculous. But, if it has happened to the person, then it is logical that they might listen. NOW.. the tricky part is that many people do "hear voices" and such in ways that are just plain incorrect. In fact, many people claim religious enlightenment, but others will say "no, that was not true". (George W. Bush comes to mind, there)

To take the original example... most of us know that horses are not pink, except.. well, they can be dyed and genetic engineering might create a pink horse. Furthermore, even if no horse is pink, does that mean that no animal is pink or that pink animals are not possible? In fact, we know pink animals are not very common here in North America, but they are found elsewhere commonly.

So, logically, someone from, say Michigan might honestly believe there are no pink aminals. A person from Africa will disagree.

Yet you fail to mention that the exact same arguments can be made to show that the case for theism also fails. It is illogical to insist that a creator absolutely existed or did not exist, only fundamentalists insist otherwise and their belief is derived from factors other than logic.
If the driving force in the religious debate was logic then everybody would be agnostic , especially in the question of which God or which devotional sect , logical probability makes the agnostic case an overwhelming one.

[chang50]

I just wondered how many people thought that logical= a correct argument. Not as many as I thought, but based on how many people toss around the word logical I was expecting a bit more.

You would have to be a couple of cards short of a full deck to think that,maybe you should give your fellow posters a bit more credit...

[heavycola]

Someone from Michigan may well believe that there is no such thing as a pink animal, but belief is not truth, and all that would be required would be to bring them to Africa (or even just to a nearby zoo) and show them a flamingo and they would realise that their belief had been incorrect.

No! they must never be allowed to see the pink animal! they must only be allowed to infer its existence from a book written thousands of years ago by superstitious desert tribesmen.

[jimboston]

Is this statement: A. Logical B. Illogical

All horses are pink
I have horse
Therefore my horse is pink

All horses are pink
I have a pink animal
Therefore the animal is a horse.

Fail

[jimboston]

How 'bout this one?


The universe must have been created
Only God can create.
Therefore the Bible is true.



Does that work, or might there be a flaw in the logic, the premises, or the conclusion?

... both statements 1 and 2 may be false.

Who says the Universe was "created"? Maybe it's always existed. We cannot prove either.

Who says only God can "create"? and while we are at it.. please define "create".
People regularly "create"... art, literature, and even jokes.

Does that mean these people are "Gods"?

[jonesthecurl]

I stand corrected, and bow to your intellect.
Well I would if I could find it.

[Frigidus]

And that, fundamentally is why the atheistic arguments fail, and why it is so important for some militant atheists to disprove the idea of God.

Because, when you start with the idea that the basis of what many people believe is just false, then it is easy to declare their thinking illogical.

To someone who has never seen a "vision", or heard what they believe to be a true voice of God, the whole idea that it could happen may seem ridiculous. But, if it has happened to the person, then it is logical that they might listen. NOW.. the tricky part is that many people do "hear voices" and such in ways that are just plain incorrect. In fact, many people claim religious enlightenment, but others will say "no, that was not true". (George W. Bush comes to mind, there)

To take the original example... most of us know that horses are not pink, except.. well, they can be dyed and genetic engineering might create a pink horse. Furthermore, even if no horse is pink, does that mean that no animal is pink or that pink animals are not possible? In fact, we know pink animals are not very common here in North America, but they are found elsewhere commonly.

So, logically, someone from, say Michigan might honestly believe there are no pink aminals. A person from Africa will disagree.

Yet you fail to mention that the exact same arguments can be made to show that the case for theism also fails. It is illogical to insist that a creator absolutely existed or did not exist, only fundamentalists insist otherwise and their belief is derived from factors other than logic.
If the driving force in the religious debate was logic then everybody would be agnostic , especially in the question of which God or which devotional sect , logical probability makes the agnostic case an overwhelming one.

I suppose you could make that argument, but that argument would suggest that agnosticism is the most logical attitude towards everything that could be suggested but not proven either way. If I claim that gravity is cause by tiny invisible, undetectable, psychic gnomes then we should all be agnostic towards that claim until evidence is found one way or another. That seems rather silly to me.

While the possibility of being wrong should always be acknowledged, athiesm is hardly a leap of faith. Certain claims require justification of some sort before they be accepted as a legitimate possibility.

[jimboston]

I stand corrected, and bow to your intellect.
Well I would if I could find it.

You have the same issue with your weiner?

[crispybits]

And that, fundamentally is why the atheistic arguments fail, and why it is so important for some militant atheists to disprove the idea of God.

Because, when you start with the idea that the basis of what many people believe is just false, then it is easy to declare their thinking illogical.

To someone who has never seen a "vision", or heard what they believe to be a true voice of God, the whole idea that it could happen may seem ridiculous. But, if it has happened to the person, then it is logical that they might listen. NOW.. the tricky part is that many people do "hear voices" and such in ways that are just plain incorrect. In fact, many people claim religious enlightenment, but others will say "no, that was not true". (George W. Bush comes to mind, there)

To take the original example... most of us know that horses are not pink, except.. well, they can be dyed and genetic engineering might create a pink horse. Furthermore, even if no horse is pink, does that mean that no animal is pink or that pink animals are not possible? In fact, we know pink animals are not very common here in North America, but they are found elsewhere commonly.

So, logically, someone from, say Michigan might honestly believe there are no pink aminals. A person from Africa will disagree.

Yet you fail to mention that the exact same arguments can be made to show that the case for theism also fails. It is illogical to insist that a creator absolutely existed or did not exist, only fundamentalists insist otherwise and their belief is derived from factors other than logic.
If the driving force in the religious debate was logic then everybody would be agnostic , especially in the question of which God or which devotional sect , logical probability makes the agnostic case an overwhelming one.

I suppose you could make that argument, but that argument would suggest that agnosticism is the most logical attitude towards everything that could be suggested but not proven either way. If I claim that gravity is cause by tiny invisible, undetectable, psychic gnomes then we should all be agnostic towards that claim until evidence is found one way or another. That seems rather silly to me.

While the possibility of being wrong should always be acknowledged, athiesm is hardly a leap of faith. Certain claims require justification of some sort before they be accepted as a legitimate possibility.

Are you holding Russell's teapot? (google it)

[bedub1]

I suppose you could make that argument, but that argument would suggest that agnosticism is the most logical attitude towards everything that could be suggested but not proven either way. If I claim that gravity is cause by tiny invisible, undetectable, psychic gnomes then we should all be agnostic towards that claim until evidence is found one way or another. That seems rather silly to me.

While the possibility of being wrong should always be acknowledged, athiesm is hardly a leap of faith. Certain claims require justification of some sort before they be accepted as a legitimate possibility.

Agnosticism is the correct attitude to have towards everything. It is a sound argument. It's not silly, it's the way you should do things.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I suppose you could make that argument, but that argument would suggest that agnosticism is the most logical attitude towards everything that could be suggested but not proven either way. If I claim that gravity is cause by tiny invisible, undetectable, psychic gnomes then we should all be agnostic towards that claim until evidence is found one way or another. That seems rather silly to me.

While the possibility of being wrong should always be acknowledged, athiesm is hardly a leap of faith. Certain claims require justification of some sort before they be accepted as a legitimate possibility.

Agnosticism is the correct attitude to have towards everything. It is a sound argument. It's not silly, it's the way you should do things.

Yes, one shouldn't close his mind off to any possibility entirely, but making a claim of belief based on available evidence is normal and what we do constantly even without realizing.

For instance, did you ponder the possibility that your keyboard might turn into a giant trout that will then proceed to slap you mercilessly when you typed that sentence?

Would pondering such a thing have any value? or would you say it's pretty safe to say that untill you start seeing news reports about keyboard -> fish transmutations on the local news you might as well claim "I don't believe my keyboard can turn into a trout" ?

[GreecePwns]

I don't think people would ponder if their keyboard might turn into a giant trout, or anything that isn't scientifically proven already. I think agnosticism is a good position to take when all other positions are unfalsifiable. But the list of things in this set has really been reduced to one thing: the creation of the universe.

So agnosticism makes sense toward that one issue, science has pretty much ruled out anything supernatural on all other fronts.

[PLAYER57832]

is a conclusion not drawn from Big Bang, Evolution, Atheism, or a Holy Book.
Just an observation that if everything had a beginning, that is by definition the beginning.

That's a pretty big "if". You assume everything has a beginning, because that is our current experience and, in fact, most people have a hard time envisioning another possibility. However, that we have a hard time seeing another possibility is no more valid an argument than someone in the middle ages thinking that sailors might sail off the edge of the world if they kept going.

Now you can give me stuff about God being "outside time" if you like. But I don't see where or how it is necessary, nor where it fits into the above.

I am not sure of your point here, however, the above is not really logic, because you make assumptions that cannot be proven or founded. It is logical to think of those things as possibilities, but not to say they must absolutely be true.

God is just irrelevant to the above.

[PLAYER57832]

No, we should all start with the premise that everything based on belief is unproven until such time as proof is provided. Not false or true, just unproven.

This includes our own views. If I say that "all normal healthy horses have 4 legs, 2 eyes and one heart" then that is an unproven statement. So we go out and look at hundreds and thousands of horses, and find that all normal healthy healthy horses (as in ones not suffering from deformity or injury) have 4 legs, 2 eyes and 1 heart.

This information need not be personally collected by us, we are able to accept that observations made by others and recorded / broadcasted are equally valid, so long as those observations are universal, as in everyone can go and make the same observation about the same thing without prejudice.

Someone from Michigan may well believe that there is no such thing as a pink animal, but belief is not truth, and all that would be required would be to bring them to Africa (or even just to a nearby zoo) and show them a flamingo and they would realise that their belief had been incorrect.

This is true, to a point. However, people are always seeking additional knowledge and seeking to put htem into an understandable framework. It is human nature to beleive that our own ideas and beliefs are a tad bit "more correct" in a sense than others. Teh problem comes not in having that belief, but in believing that you then have the right to dictate how others believe and think.

The one factor that is often missing when it comes to proof of religion, though is the internal. Things can happen to an individual.. either an individual alone or even just within the individual that may be very valid, but just not seen by others or, in some cases, easy to explain to others. That does not make for valid science conclusions, but it does make for logical belief -- those beliefs might be in religion or they might be a belief that spurs someone to spend 20 years researching and trying to prove something scientifically.

[bedub1]

No, we should all start with the premise that everything based on belief is unproven until such time as proof is provided. Not false or true, just unproven.

This includes our own views. If I say that "all normal healthy horses have 4 legs, 2 eyes and one heart" then that is an unproven statement. So we go out and look at hundreds and thousands of horses, and find that all normal healthy healthy horses (as in ones not suffering from deformity or injury) have 4 legs, 2 eyes and 1 heart.

This information need not be personally collected by us, we are able to accept that observations made by others and recorded / broadcasted are equally valid, so long as those observations are universal, as in everyone can go and make the same observation about the same thing without prejudice.

Someone from Michigan may well believe that there is no such thing as a pink animal, but belief is not truth, and all that would be required would be to bring them to Africa (or even just to a nearby zoo) and show them a flamingo and they would realise that their belief had been incorrect.

This is true, to a point. However, people are always seeking additional knowledge and seeking to put htem into an understandable framework. It is human nature to beleive that our own ideas and beliefs are a tad bit "more correct" in a sense than others. Teh problem comes not in having that belief, but in believing that you then have the right to dictate how others believe and think.

The one factor that is often missing when it comes to proof of religion, though is the internal. Things can happen to an individual.. either an individual alone or even just within the individual that may be very valid, but just not seen by others or, in some cases, easy to explain to others. That does not make for valid science conclusions, but it does make for logical belief -- those beliefs might be in religion or they might be a belief that spurs someone to spend 20 years researching and trying to prove something scientifically.

Or the person might be crazy and seeing/hearing things. You call it religion, I call you insane.

EDIT: I don't mean you personally, unless you are seeing/hearing things, and then you might very well be considered insane.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't think people would ponder if their keyboard might turn into a giant trout, or anything that isn't scientifically proven already.

While no, a keyboard won't be turned into a trout outside of "magic" (we do have enough information to determine this), to claim that we should not ponder or believe anything not scientifically proven is to deny most of science, fundamentally.

Few things in science are actually proven. Science is most importantly a method of discovery, of viewing things with as little bias as possible and of dsitinguishing between that which is proven fact given specific parameters, that which is unproven and that which is yet unknown. None of that really interferes with religion, as a whole. (though certainly specific scientific claims can counter some specific religious claims)

I think agnosticism is a good position to take when all other positions are unfalsifiable. But the list of things in this set has really been reduced to one thing: the creation of the universe.

Not really, but that is a pretty big one.

So agnosticism makes sense toward that one issue, science has pretty much ruled out anything supernatural on all other fronts.

I don't believe science has even defined "all other fronts".. never mind ruled out what you call "supernatural".

[PLAYER57832]

Or the person might be crazy and seeing/hearing things. You call it religion, I call you insane.

EDIT: I don't mean you personally, unless you are seeing/hearing things, and then you might very well be considered insane.

Yes, I expected such a response (rather did ask for it).

But in truth, this is little different from science. How many truly new scientific discoveries are really met with wide appreciation and acceptance at first? Pretty few. This might not seem to be true because we see a lot of not very earth-shattering stuff put forward by the media as if it really were earth-shattering.

I would never deny that there are crazy people who "hear strange voices". But, can you prove that all such are false? In fact, you cannot. No one can. In fact, if you really push, chances are we can come up with a few cases where someone will describe hearing something (maybe not quite a clear voice, maybe more of a premonition, etc.). I really don't want to get bogged down into a discussion of that specifically. A LOT of what is "out there" is just garbage (truth is, that holds on most fronts now-a-days, anyway). But, plenty of very, very intelligent and critically thinking people have had such experiences. Scientists, in fact. In fact, some scientists refer to such revelations or inspiration for why they do what they do.

I am not saying that anyone else should just believe something is true because someone says they "heard its true" or whatever. I am saying that to dismiss such outright as an impossibility is to already have moved away from logic, objectivity and reason. It is to begin to make your own statements of belief. That in most cases you would be correct is just irrelevant.

After all, a quarter occasionally does land on its edge, rather than up or down. (and if I wanted to be really evil, I could say CC dice occasionally even get all 6's.... LOL)

[bedub1]

[PLAYER57832]

Nice quip, but nothing to do with real religious belief, sorry.

[bedub1]

Nice quip, but nothing to do with real religious belief, sorry.

Lol. Your religions isn't real by mine is!

[PLAYER57832]

Nice quip, but nothing to do with real religious belief, sorry.

Lol. Your religions isn't real by mine is!

Could be, could be... It is religion, not scientific proof, after all.