Page 12 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213141516171819 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 368

Thread: Religion and Logics

  1. #221
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Arcturus Mengsk View Post
    What is the point of a baby born into starvation, dehydration and sickness, dies a few days later, according to faith?

    That baby had 0 time to make any choices so that is deemed worthy of heaven or not?
    Emperor Arcturus Mengsk,

    Then what is the point of before that baby can leave its mother's womb it is destroyed by abortion? Are we to blame God for that? Concerning starvation, dehydration and sickness, these are things that man can solve if only he would put his mind to it. The amounts of money that are directed to other things and I'm talking of trillions here, things like the Hadron Collider, Space travel and donating billions to rulers whose people are in the situation you talk of, but horde and confiscate that money for their own personal aggrandisement or the Clinton Foundation who got 12 billion to help Haiti yet they only saw some 2 billion of it. These are all things that belong to man and not God.

  2. #222
    Elfdude's Avatar Tribunus
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    7,335

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    You know I was mostly replying to basics' post to highlight the inconsistency in what he preaches (no free will but eternal punishment if you end up on the wrong side).

    Since any discussion with you is still infinitely more interesting, I'll bite anyway:
    I got that but as far as I can tell you're about the best I can hope for in terms of conversation involving logic w/ a "religious" person. i.e. same

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    1) There is a third possibility for choices, in that of course they are partly influenced by environment but still retain a certain freedom to select options. Notice that I do not subscribe to a mechanistic/deterministic worldview. I've had a rather lengthy and enlightening discussion with Himster about that (who does), which I can dig up for reference, if necessary.
    Ok, that's a fair assertion, a choice is by nature an aggregate of experiences both internal and external leading to a decision. My problem is from a biochemical perspective the processes in the brain while they do give more variability with regards to the random and unpredictable are still made on the basis of the environment, memories, genetics and when all else fails randomness. What makes the choice of drinking water now better than choosing to drink it in 10 minutes. Nothing. The only difference is the stimuli pushing you to drink water. Now certainly some people have higher thresholds or lower thresholds when it comes to making a decision but ultimately these are aggregates of influences that lead inevitably to a choice. I.E. we could run the same scenario 1000x and without memory of the result of any one of the iterations you would almost certainly make the same choice. This is something I encounter more and more as I go deeper in the biomechanical processes that underpin our neurology. We certainly "argue" within ourselves and often multiple parallel ideas come across but the one which wins is ultimately defined by quorum sensing. In order for us to make a non-deterministic choice we must by nature have access to a non-deterministic pathway to do so. About the only thing which subtly might allow a differentiation in choices is quantum effects but to me this is still random. Thus I struggle to understand what someone means by a "free choice" because from my perspective that never existed in the first place. We are glorified, stupendously complex machines beholden by the will of an omniscient creator or machines beholden by the mistakes of our maker. We ultimately are not at all built to make choices freely, or to have free will (i struggle to identify how something like that could ever be built) but rather to choose the best choices based off our intuition and concrete facts. The learning of facts or what we think are facts fundamentally change our brain's physiology, every thought we have, every memory we save, is all encoded in physical tissues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    2) Predictability is a temporal notion and most Christian denominations would probably think of God as super-temporal, so God doesn't "let things happen" after "knowing beforehand what would come to pass" in our faith, but events are probably more like the points of a line to us, simultaneously perceivable (in lack of better, completely atemporal words - which is hard because our human conduct is necessarily temporal).
    True enough. It's entirely possible that this is amongst the best possible timelines but the fact that the universe itself is predicated upon the mechanisms and designs of an omniscient omnibenevolent and omnipotent ruler makes me wonder about that. Is there some standard of goodness which we can't understand? In which case the assertion of god as an omnibenevolent being is meaningless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    3) Earthly suffering classified as "bad" may not conform with the priorities of an omnipotent creator that can offer eternal life to make all finite suffering insignificant in comparison.
    True but again, then god being a god of goodness is meaningless because goodness is not what we may define as good but rather has to do with some unknown and unknowable prioritization which inherently includes suffering.

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Then what is the point of before that baby can leave its mother's womb it is destroyed by abortion? Are we to blame God for that?
    Yes. God knew the pregnancy would occur. God knew the choice that would be made. God designed the system that resulted in the choice.

  3. #223
    chriscase's Avatar Chairman Miao
    Civitate Patrician

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,732

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    I'm always fascinated by the idea that the perception of choice is an illusion produced by perspective. For one thing, it's obvious that, looking at a timeline, any perceived "choice" in the past is no longer contingent - it is determined. So from that atemporal perspective at least there is no such thing as consistent non-determinism: choices that lie in the past are fully determined.

    But what if the perception of choice is an illusion in the first place? Suppose there is a machine that picks a path for a vehicle; the internal mechanics of that machine employ some deterministic yet complex algorithm to "choose" a path. From outside the machine, we can study the behavior of the vehicle and - in principle - predict the "choices" that will be made. But, let's suppose part of the algorithm is to take input data about past choices and vehicle status and make further changes to the algorithm itself. What would this process look like from inside the algorithm as it operates? Perhaps this is simply the operation of a deterministic process but perceived within that process, it creates the illusion of choice.

    Why is it that mysteries are always about something bad? You never hear there's a mystery, and then it's like, "Who made cookies?"
    - Demetri Martin

  4. #224
    Elfdude's Avatar Tribunus
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    7,335

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    I'm not sure what it might look like from internal of the algorithm but I'd even assert we are not internal to our own algorithms so to speak. What I mean is that most of our "rationality" is postliminary to the actual choice. Which is to say, we make most of our choices subconsciously without thought and then justify our choices afterwards. When a choice is rarely kicked off to our conscious mind to resolve we may take a novel approach but that novel approach is still informed off of our experience both internal and external. It's important to remember our existence as we know it happens a fraction of a second after what occurred in reality and our perception is only a fraction of a fraction of the detail which really exists, our brain just recreates an postliminary approximation of what we experienced.

  5. #225
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    Not sure about the mathematics side probably because it's way over my head, but as I see it choice is based on past experience more than anything else. For the average person to go outside his or her box if not based on their own experience it is based on the knowledge of what the experience of others has been. Of course it never determines that these choices always turn out for the better but they do add to the plus and minuses of life.

  6. #226
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Frankfurt, München, somtimes my beloved Rhineland
    Posts
    6,395

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    From a deterministic perspective there is little one can say against your arguments, and that I gladly concede. I would point out, however, that from a transcendental idealist (i.e. post-Kantian) perspective the scientifically observed mechanisms of the determinist position that prevent free will are in themselves "merely" models constructed by the thinking mind to explain what it observes. In that vein the environmental influences and neurochemical mechanisms seemingly determining our choices are secondary to the thinking mind that perceives and effectively constructs (in the philosophical sense) them in scientific conduct, so they cannot completely remove the free choice of the thinking mind in the first place.

    I have so far not found any cogent argument to prefer either position (mechanistic-determinist, idealist-constructivist) over the other and as a previous discussion with Himster has brought about, they are very much in a circular relationship: If you start with the idealist notion of the thinking mind and the world as its consistent construct, then partial determination by "laws of nature" emerges as that mind conducts science and explores that which is perceived as the material prerequisites for its general conduct.
    If you start with the mechanistic worldview then the mind/brain emerges as a self-conscious product of this and has to acknowledge the insurmountable subjective bias of all its perceptions, so even if there are universal laws of nature determining all outcomes (or dictating absolute, no-choice quantum randomness for that matter) the fallability of the observer puts whatever portion we may have discovered of them under general reservation of potential falsifiability/later revision.

    Which perspective is yours is either determined by other mechanisms (determinist viewpoint) or entirely your choice (idealist viewpoint). As long as one remains consistent, there is little to contest actually, so I probably chose the idealist viewpoint, while you might be forced to accept the determinist one
    Last edited by Iskar; September 15, 2017 at 11:36 AM.
    "Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi
    "Du musst die Sterne und den Mond enthaupten, und am besten auch den Zar. Die Gestirne werden sich behaupten, aber wahrscheinlich nicht der Zar." - Einstürzende Neubauten, Weil, Weil, Weil

    On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.

    I can heartily recommend the Italian Wars mod by Aneirin.
    In exile, but still under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Aneirin. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.

  7. #227
    Elfdude's Avatar Tribunus
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    7,335

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    From a deterministic perspective there is little one can say against your arguments, and that I gladly concede. I would point out, however, that from a transcendental idealist (i.e. post-Kantian) perspective the scientifically observed mechanisms of the determinist position that prevent free will are in themselves "merely" models constructed by the thinking mind to explain what it observes.
    True they are a best fit approach.

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    In that vein the environmental influences and neurochemical mechanisms seemingly determining our choices are secondary to the thinking mind that perceives and effectively constructs (in the philosophical sense) them in scientific conduct, so they cannot completely remove the free choice of the thinking mind in the first place.
    An interesting line but the major issue with it is the fact that perception and construction of rationalization appears to happen postliminary to the inciting stimuli and reaction itself. I.E. I choose to eat an apple. Observe the choice I've made then rationalize why I made the choice. Not rationally decide a course of action, and then choose to eat the apple. It's counter-intuitive for sure but that seems to be what we see.

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    I have so far not found any cogent argument to prefer either position (mechanistic-determinist, idealist-constructivist) over the other and as a previous discussion with Himster has brought about, they are very much in a circular relationship: If you start with the idealist notion of the thinking mind and the world as its consistent construct, then partial determination by "laws of nature" emerges as that mind conducts science and explores that which is perceived as the material prerequisites for its general conduct.
    I see the mind as a glorified variable accounting machine. It's designed to take as many datapoints and datasets into account as possible producing what appears to be free choice which is really just extraordinarily complex determinism. What's interesting however is that the rationality which follows rarely follows this pathway i.e. we resolve or calculate our decisions well before we come up with an argument about why they're right. The rare case of cognitive dissonance where expectations and actuality fail to meet only require one to figure out a new pathway for taking on these variables. For example I may decide things by a complicated procedure of the path of least resistance but then I may find that the path of least resistance is problematic with regards to my driving and thus create a new special rule which alters my ordinary decision mechanism to account for the misfit. Or I may find I never took into account weather in my behavior of driving before, have an accident and then take weather into account. From an outside perspective it appears that I'm choosing a special rule, or taking into account a new variable by free-choice but even these "subchoices" are inexorably tied to internal and external experiences I've had previously in turn meaning that while it's easy to think of alternative choices from an external perspective it's actually impossible to act upon those choices or rather that there was never a choice at all.

    In essence we operate on an ask forgiveness methodology and hope that we don't make such an egregious mistake that we lose the ability to try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    If you start with the mechanistic worldview then the mind/brain emerges as a self-conscious product of this and has to acknowledge the insurmountable subjective bias of all its perceptions, so even if there are universal laws of nature determining all outcomes (or dictating absolute, no-choice quantum randomness for that matter) the fallability of the observer puts whatever portion we may have discovered of them under general reservation of potential falsifiability/later revision.
    I think you may mistake my assertions. The laws of nature operate regardless of our conception or perception of them. The observer is of course fallible, I'd never assert otherwise, but rather I'm not asserting that our mechanical mind rationally chooses the best choice but rather our mind is like a series of ruts in the road which we follow until we encounter an exception at which point we lay a new biochemical rut in the road and so on and so forth. Thus we can influence the choices people make by influencing the environment be it through education or action but the choice is still ultimately singular not plural. We move from one point to another point because of established external and internal stimuli which we are largely speaking unaware of.

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    Which perspective is yours is either determined by other mechanisms (determinist viewpoint) or entirely your choice (idealist viewpoint). As long as one remains consistent, there is little to contest actually, so I probably chose the idealist viewpoint, while you might be forced to accept the determinist one
    Yeah, my view is that your "choice" of the idealist perspective is invariable and singular, you don't really possess the choice to choose otherwise because to do so would require you violating your "biochemical ruts" so to speak. However as you (if you) add these new pieces of information to your understanding it may in turn propel you to, in addition to your other ruts shift that choice to determinist. I suppose we're getting close to memetics in that our behavior is akin to a genetic code which is constantly being rewritten by external and internal stimuli but is still of singular nature.
    Last edited by Elfdude; September 15, 2017 at 08:18 PM.

  8. #228
    LestaT's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Campus Martius
    Posts
    3,877

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    Would it not be quite unsaintly and rather presumptuous to state that only people like oneself can make proper statements about religion? I think the assertion "only saints can properly talk about religion" runs into aporia, as no saint would make such an un-humble statement.
    It is, and as a muslim I would say that is one of the cause of the state of muslims these days. Only those religious scholars are suppose to talk about religion etc etc.

    Gone were the days where religion is not about how many times you pray in a day but encompass everything about life. A way of life, so to speak.

  9. #229
    chriscase's Avatar Chairman Miao
    Civitate Patrician

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,732

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    I've started a discussion of Russell's Paradox, as promised.

    Why is it that mysteries are always about something bad? You never hear there's a mystery, and then it's like, "Who made cookies?"
    - Demetri Martin

  10. #230
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    Donald J. Trump,

    Eve's choice to eat the fruit because we don't know that it was an apple was based on what? She didn't know what death was but she knew that God did and yet here we find someone else, the serpent, telling her that God didn't really mean she would die. did it know what death was? She must have assumed so but she had no knowledge to back that up. So what we see is that choice comes by knowledge garnered from experience of oneself or others to bring us to any decision. Today we make decisions quite naturally every day without thinking much about why, because others before us have made the same and they have turned out all right for the most. Therefore determination or as the Bible says predetermination can only come from outside of our knowledge and experience because choices are determined by God and done so way before there was a world. It dampens the Darwin theology by a mile simply because no other than man has the capability to make choices on the scale that we do so how could any creature pass that on to us?

  11. #231
    DaVinci's Avatar TW Modder 2005-2016
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The plastic poisoned and d(r)ying surface of planet Earth in before Armageddon
    Posts
    15,359

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Donald J. Trump,

    Eve's choice to eat the fruit because we don't know that it was an apple was based on what? She didn't know what death was but she knew that God did and yet here we find someone else, the serpent, telling her that God didn't really mean she would die. did it know what death was? She must have assumed so but she had no knowledge to back that up. So what we see is that choice comes by knowledge garnered from experience of oneself or others to bring us to any decision. Today we make decisions quite naturally every day without thinking much about why, because others before us have made the same and they have turned out all right for the most. Therefore determination or as the Bible says predetermination can only come from outside of our knowledge and experience because choices are determined by God and done so way before there was a world. It dampens the Darwin theology by a mile simply because no other than man has the capability to make choices on the scale that we do so how could any creature pass that on to us?
    ... so after all the comments here, you manage it to ignore any and all brain science/research? "Well done", as example of bible fundamentalism, and btw. also confirms according brain science/research findings.
    #Anthropocene #not just Global Warming but Global Disaster, NASA #Deforestation #Plastic Emission #The Blob #Uninhabitable Earth #Savest Place On Earth #AMOC #ICAN #MIT study "Falsehoods Win" #Engineers of Chaos
    #"there can be no doubt about it: the enemy stands on the Right!" 1922, by Joseph Wirth.
    Rightwingers, like in the past the epitome of incompetence, except for evilness where they own the mastership.
    Iirc., already 2013 i spoke of "Renaissance of Fascism", it was accurate.
    #"Humanity is in ‘final exam’ as to whether or not it qualifies for continuance in universe." Buckminster Fuller
    Any chance for this exam? Very low, the established Anthropocentrism destroys the basis of existence.
    #My Modding #The Witcher 3: Lore Friendly Tweaks (LFT)
    #End, A diary of the Third World War (A.-A. Guha, 1983) - now, it started on 24th February 2022.

  12. #232

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Donald J. Trump,

    Eve's choice to eat the fruit because we don't know that it was an apple was based on what? She didn't know what death was but she knew that God did and yet here we find someone else, the serpent, telling her that God didn't really mean she would die. did it know what death was? She must have assumed so but she had no knowledge to back that up. So what we see is that choice comes by knowledge garnered from experience of oneself or others to bring us to any decision. Today we make decisions quite naturally every day without thinking much about why, because others before us have made the same and they have turned out all right for the most. Therefore determination or as the Bible says predetermination can only come from outside of our knowledge and experience because choices are determined by God and done so way before there was a world. It dampens the Darwin theology by a mile simply because no other than man has the capability to make choices on the scale that we do so how could any creature pass that on to us?
    In my country, there are lots of stray dogs and cats sadly. Dogs and cats learn to look before they cross the street. They learn because when they are young they see many of their siblings get crushed to death by traffic. They can learn from experience and observing the world around them. They don't need to make choices in the magnitude that humans do because they have no need of intricate government systems, financial systems, military systems. All they need is sustenance and shelter, so their array of choices is limited but sufficient towards those two goals.
    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

  13. #233
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    Emperor Arcturus Mengsk,

    That might all be true in many aspects but the thing is that dogs and cats can never enhance what they already are. When an animal is born there are limitations on what it can achieve whereas humans are a different kettle of fish as it were. The only common denominator is that all meet death at some point, the animal rarely outliving the human.

  14. #234

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    Apologies for the delay!

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    If you don't mind me saying the Bible makes it plain that no man can comprehend what God is and lays it down that you're not supposed to try. He is what He is and all He ever asks is that you believe that. Proof, well look around.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    First, the argument in the graphic you post makes the same fundamental mistake as before: You cannot slap "actual" and "potential" as (rather sloppily defined) properties on nouns and use them as objects of propositional (or any) logics. In fact this is just a renaming of the attempt to use "existent" and "non-existent" as properties. Why that causes problems with logics I have explained above (see my post about "existence is not a property").
    Well, this is somewhat correct, but we're not trying to completely comprehend or "limit" God. Because whenever we speak of God, we are talking metaphorically. When we say God "exists", or "is" this or that way, we are using language meant to describe finite beings. But this is simply a linguistic limitation and doesn't address the argument.

    Secondly, there is no cogent reason to assume every chain must be finite or have a well-defined beginning.
    Why does there need to be a reason for it? It's interesting, you are appealing to the principle of sufficient reason to refute the principle of sufficient reason. It's quite self-defeating.

    The long answer is that logic and reason in general, as well as science, are all rooted in a metaphysical understanding that assumes true certain principles about reality, such as the principle of sufficient reason, the principle of noncontradiction, and so on. You can certainly reject these principles, but doing so would be a rejection of the foundations of logic. If you reject logic, then indeed, the various logical arguments for God will be unconvincing to you.

    It is often said, that evidence is what's required to convince a reasonable man, whereas "proof", is what is required to convince an unreasonable man. That is why there probably can't ever be much "proof" of God. The bases of reason, are beliefs, not necessarily self-evident, undeniable "truths."

    Finally, even if one follows the argument you copied here, the "being" described by its results is a-personal, unrelated to ethics and static without agency. It has nothing to do with the God of christianity that takes a vital interest in the lives and fates of his creations. It would furthermore undermine our faith in salvation by Christ's sacrifice, as Christ is "vere homo", which would contradict at least the "incorporeal" and "immutable" point, so Christ could not be "vere deus" as well. Unless you want to go full Arianism this is inacceptable from a Christian perspective.
    I'd rather not extend the discussion to include Christian theology, the evidence for which mainly is in the form of testimony and personal experience, rather than logical deductions. But I'll reiterate that there isn't a contradiction between Christianity and the metaphysical arguments for God. These arguments are meant to show simply that God "exists", and do not contradict the claim that he interacts with creation, or is several persons (but with one essence), or any other Christian tenet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    "Something that is purely actual with no unrealized potentials must be omnipotent. To not be able to do something is to have an unrealized potential"

    I think most religious people would like to believe the 'omnipotent' is free to make choices, but would that not automatically result in unrealized potentials?
    Good question, but it is difficult to answer. As I said above, whenever we use human language to describe or understand God, it is by analogy and therefore not completely accurate. If God can make choices, it is not likely to be in the same way as humans make choices.

    Quote Originally Posted by Donald J. Trump View Post
    The easiest explaination is that you cannot logically deduce this being's existence.

    The argument you posted is circular fallacious logic utilizing definitions which are lacking in rigor and there's many physical processes which are just as acceptable. You haven't deduced god, you've deduced a force which is beyond causality. Modern physics describes time as something which arises out of the action of quantum forces. Which is to say the quantum world is outside of causality and appears to have caused all things which are not quantum in nature. If you want to call quantum foam god go ahead but good luck shoehorning that concept into the biblical god.
    Well you seem to be having trouble differentiating between god and God, I think you should be humble and avoid authoritatively stating what God is or isn't.

    Interesting story. Anthony Flew, the atheist philosopher who in the 1970s tried, and largely failed, to redefine atheism from the "belief that no god exists" to "lack of belief in gods", began believing in God at age 80 after reading Aristotle's Prime Mover argument for God, which is very similar to the one I posted earlier. So if even prophets of atheism consider the argument a good one, I think you should hesitate before dismissing it out of hand.

    -
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch, Coughdrop addict

  15. #235
    chriscase's Avatar Chairman Miao
    Civitate Patrician

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,732

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    It's quite possible to work within a non-standard logical framework without abandoning the use of logical frameworks in total. I do note that you seem to be claiming once more that God is a solid, standalone logical proposition, despite the evident fact your previous attempts to establish this - in this thread - have resulted in failure.

    Why is it that mysteries are always about something bad? You never hear there's a mystery, and then it's like, "Who made cookies?"
    - Demetri Martin

  16. #236

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    Quote Originally Posted by chriscase View Post
    It's quite possible to work within a non-standard logical framework without abandoning the use of logical frameworks in total.
    "Non-standard." You mean something you made up. Whatever it is it sure isn't logic as properly understood.

    I do note that you seem to be claiming once more that God is a solid, standalone logical proposition, despite the evident fact your previous attempts to establish this - in this thread - have resulted in failure.
    I have no idea what you're talking about.
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch, Coughdrop addict

  17. #237
    chriscase's Avatar Chairman Miao
    Civitate Patrician

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,732

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Legend View Post
    "Non-standard." You mean something you made up. Whatever it is it sure isn't logic as properly understood.
    Feel free to educate yourself. For example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Legend View Post
    I have no idea what you're talking about.
    That's just as well, given you have repeatedly declaimed your disinterest in explaining yourself.
    Last edited by chriscase; November 09, 2017 at 04:38 PM.

    Why is it that mysteries are always about something bad? You never hear there's a mystery, and then it's like, "Who made cookies?"
    - Demetri Martin

  18. #238

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    It's funny. Someone started this thread confidently claiming that religion is illogical. A few pages later, we have atheists crying their hearts out after being shown to be the illogical ones, "Who says logic is true anyway?!", "Who says one thing must follow from another?", "No, no, we do believe in logic. It's just our logic is... 'informal', 'non-standard.'"



    Next up: educating atheists on the religious origins and bases of science.
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch, Coughdrop addict

  19. #239
    chriscase's Avatar Chairman Miao
    Civitate Patrician

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,732

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    I can tell that's how you wanted things to go here, but the actual thread transpired quite differently. You may recall you offered a source that you thought would enlighten us all as to the truly glorious features of Christianity. However, the source was found lacking. Indeed - it was found to be logically contradictory. In response you seem to have proceeded as if none of this occurred. Perhaps this tactic works for you in other fora. However, here in the EMM I think you will discover that readers are not so easily duped.

    Why is it that mysteries are always about something bad? You never hear there's a mystery, and then it's like, "Who made cookies?"
    - Demetri Martin

  20. #240

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Legend View Post
    Well you seem to be having trouble differentiating between god and God, I think you should be humble and avoid authoritatively stating what God is or isn't.

    Interesting story. Anthony Flew, the atheist philosopher who in the 1970s tried, and largely failed, to redefine atheism from the "belief that no god exists" to "lack of belief in gods", began believing in God at age 80 after reading Aristotle's Prime Mover argument for God, which is very similar to the one I posted earlier. So if even prophets of atheism consider the argument a good one, I think you should hesitate before dismissing it out of hand.

    -
    This is interesting question, but Donald got it right here. Ideas of god, as an entity, are extremely different from person to person, but they do share a few common traits, and one of them is sentience. There is no evidence that quantum foam is sentient. Going around, saying "this doesn't fit causality, therefore god" is a pure leap of faith for several reasons, and this is one of them.

    Prime mover is superficially compelling, but eventually empty. I deconstructed it here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...2#post15393972

    You're committing a fallacy here, that is appeal on authority, made even more hilarious by your attempt to pose someone as authority while he isn't to most atheists. For most atheists, there is nothing like "atheist religion". Most of all, there is no structure of authority like there is in religion. No prophets, no gods, no priests...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •