Page 8 of 19 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 368

Thread: Religion and Logics

  1. #141
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    Iskar,

    Wow, the only resort I can think of right now is to repeat that which I posted to chriscase regarding explaining all that to a child who asks if there is a God. My proof is that of eating the pudding to see if He does exist which in my experience has been verified more times than not and I say that because there have been times when I have been skeptical in my own journey with Him and He expects that even from His own. To put it this way, my faith is built on what has been factually written both by prophets and non-prophets that was fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth coming, dying and being raised from the dead that being witnessed by so many. That is what is revealed to sinners whom God has called out from among others and it has happened on so many occasions over six thousand years as to be much more than just coincidence. It all runs just as had been written which gives credence to what becomes the faith of a believer.

  2. #142
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Iskar,

    Wow, the only resort I can think of right now is to repeat that which I posted to chriscase regarding explaining all that to a child who asks if there is a God. My proof is that of eating the pudding to see if He does exist which in my experience has been verified more times than not and I say that because there have been times when I have been skeptical in my own journey with Him and He expects that even from His own. To put it this way, my faith is built on what has been factually written both by prophets and non-prophets that was fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth coming, dying and being raised from the dead that being witnessed by so many. That is what is revealed to sinners whom God has called out from among others and it has happened on so many occasions over six thousand years as to be much more than just coincidence. It all runs just as had been written which gives credence to what becomes the faith of a believer.
    You can eat as much literalist pudding as you want, basics, and in fact the above post was not in any way addressing or challenging your position (besides the fact that any logical argument automatically does that). I don't see why one would need to explain the notion of existence to children and this has little to do with what I'd tell them about God at a young age. There is an appropriate message for every stage of mental development.
    "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.

  3. #143
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    You can eat as much literalist pudding as you want, basics, and in fact the above post was not in any way addressing or challenging your position (besides the fact that any logical argument automatically does that). I don't see why one would need to explain the notion of existence to children and this has little to do with what I'd tell them about God at a young age. There is an appropriate message for every stage of mental development.
    Iskar,

    It only does if one is on the outside trying to look in. Children in their quest for knowledge will at some point question if there is a God depending on what they have heard from others whether elder brothers, sisters or friends. It has to happen whether from a Christian home or even a non-Christian home.

  4. #144
    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

    Yeah, my point was somewhat missed, I think: I would try to answer such questions in a way the children can grasp, in accordance with the faith of the holy church, although not in such a dogmatic manner that would foreclose the children's individual process of choosing their own religion in the end.

    What I wrote above about the notion of existence has nothing to do with answering children's questions about religion in the first place.
    "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.

  5. #145
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    Yeah, my point was somewhat missed, I think: I would try to answer such questions in a way the children can grasp, in accordance with the faith of the holy church, although not in such a dogmatic manner that would foreclose the children's individual process of choosing their own religion in the end.

    What I wrote above about the notion of existence has nothing to do with answering children's questions about religion in the first place.
    Iskar,

    I understand that. It was just the convoluted answer to chriscases' convoluted statement both of which were way over my head, me being a simple guy of faith in a God Who by the word of His mouth made everything happen in a very logical manner.

  6. #146
    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

    Just because you don't understand something that does not mean it is convoluted, and if God created this world then appreciating the logical side of it is part of approaching him through his creation.
    "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. #147
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex Magistrate

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    11,087

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    It only does if one is on the outside trying to look in.
    Yours is not the only faith whose followers believe they are "on the inside" while everyone else is on the outside. The "you will see if you first believe" position is evidently false, so let us drop that please.

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    Just because you don't understand something that does not mean it is convoluted, and if God created this world then appreciating the logical side of it is part of approaching him through his creation.
    It is the only valid approach and it most certainly does not point in the direction of it being a god of any organised religion. If there's a god who cares about what we believe, it's the religious who have to worry.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  8. #148
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    Muizer,

    Well, put in the context of Scripture and those that preceded me there only is one faith and that of Jesus Christ which is imputed to all that believe on Him through rebirth. Or, as Peter writes, Scripture comes alive through the Holy Spirit's teaching and leading and only to them that believe because His indwelling of them makes that possible.

  9. #149
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex Magistrate

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    11,087

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    That is beside the point, which is that the notion of faith preceding certainty is nonsense. The very fact you say there is only one faith means that people of other faiths are deluding themselves. The fact that they can delude themselves into thinking they are on the inside, means you might as well be the one deluding yourself. All that is demonstrated is the human capacity for delusion.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  10. #150
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    That is beside the point, which is that the notion of faith preceding certainty is nonsense. The very fact you say there is only one faith means that people of other faiths are deluding themselves. The fact that they can delude themselves into thinking they are on the inside, means you might as well be the one deluding yourself. All that is demonstrated is the human capacity for delusion.
    Muizer,

    And that's what Paul wrote of when he said that there are false Jesus's, false gods and false spirits therefore what to look for is someone or something that justifies that Jesus Christ died on a cross, was raised again after three days and now awaits His rerappearing to finalise all things because He is God. In effect the faith that the born again receive is the faith of Jesus Christ to be reassured that just as He was raised, so too will all His be raised in the same manner. Therefore faith does precede certainty in the case of the church and does so believing that certainty will come. Now regarding other belief systems that are called Christian, Jesus in His parables of both wheat and tares, sheep and goats emphasises that there are the two, believers and those that think they believe. He knows who they are and they know Who He is by the sound of His voice. His will know His voice and follow whilst the others will cry out, " But we did this and that in Your name," and He will say " Depart from Me as I know you not." My words but yet what is written.

  11. #151

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    It seems to me, and I have no great understanding of logic by any means, that that our very existence is conflicting with causation (addressing the OP).

    The fact is, as I understand it, is that causation is essentially the fundamental that everything is a result of another action. It is a principle in logic, for something to exist, it has to be "created".

    I believe our very world defies this fundamental to an extent. We know the big bang created the planets, we understand our origins. I see a problem with this theory. We can keep tracing back, we can hypothetically discover what created the stars and whatever created that, ect. The endgame is always that something had a predecessor. Ultimately though, we need to understand that something, somewhere has always existed to start the sequence of events. And "always existing" is no doubt an issue for logical causation.

    Let me know what you think, maybe I'm wrong somewhere? after all, there are just the thoughts of a logical simpleton

  12. #152
    chriscase's Avatar Chairman Miao
    Civitate Patrician

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,732

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    Quote Originally Posted by goatmaster View Post
    It is a principle in logic, for something to exist, it has to be "created".
    ...
    Let me know what you think, maybe I'm wrong somewhere?
    I think you've gone wrong right there. AFAIK there is no such principle in logic of any kind. Perhaps you can look for sources where such a concept as creation exists in any formal logical system. The statement you are making about existence and creation belongs firmly to philosophical argumentation such as WL Craig's, which has not even a passing resemblance to formal logic.

    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

  13. #153

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    I am certainly not familiar with the differences between formal logic and what I am describing. I simply am answering what I though the sentiment the OP held was.

    As I understand it, a point the Op had was essentially that God was omnipotent, therefore he is not compatible with causation, which I had at least thought he implied was a principle in logic? I could be wrong there.

    Anyhow here is his post that gave me that idea:
    God is not bound by determinism and causality (goes with being omnipotent, if you didn't realize that). God is the origin of everything. Isn't that your dogma?
    As for causation-

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/c...n-metaphysics/

    This link does not have clear cut "definitions", but look under point one Relata and it describes a scenario that it later deems cause and effect. This is the same as causation, no?

    Also, the Cambridge definition, probably unrelated but I'll add it for good measure.

    http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/d...lish/causation

  14. #154
    chriscase's Avatar Chairman Miao
    Civitate Patrician

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,732

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    If you read my responses to the OP, you'll see I did not agree with him that causation, much less "creation" has any intrinsic meaning in logic. You appear to be making the same mistake as he did.

    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

  15. #155

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    That is fair enough, I trust you more than myself on the matter of logic. At any rate I am more or less rebutting his statement that God is incompatible with causation by saying that our very existence is incompatible. Whether or not causation is or is not logic (and it appears not to be, I trust you there) is inconsequential to me. Truth is I know very little about logic, and when he presented causation as logic I did not know any better than to believe that. Thanks for the clarification, little "mis-wordings" like this can be the death of discussions, good to know.

  16. #156
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    goatmaster,

    Have you never thought why it is that men, serious men, can fantasize over superheroes yet cannot begin to grasp that there is a God and that He did create all things just as is written?

  17. #157

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    Quote Originally Posted by goatmaster View Post
    It seems to me, and I have no great understanding of logic by any means, that that our very existence is conflicting with causation (addressing the OP).

    The fact is, as I understand it, is that causation is essentially the fundamental that everything is a result of another action. It is a principle in logic, for something to exist, it has to be "created".

    I believe our very world defies this fundamental to an extent. We know the big bang created the planets, we understand our origins. I see a problem with this theory. We can keep tracing back, we can hypothetically discover what created the stars and whatever created that, ect. The endgame is always that something had a predecessor. Ultimately though, we need to understand that something, somewhere has always existed to start the sequence of events. And "always existing" is no doubt an issue for logical causation.

    Let me know what you think, maybe I'm wrong somewhere? after all, there are just the thoughts of a logical simpleton
    I think you're thinking of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which does not say everything has a creator, but only that everything must have a sufficient explanation for its existence, whether it is in an external cause or in the necessity of its own nature. You're right, there has to be an uncaused First Cause at the end of the causal chain. God is a non-contingent (i.e. necessary) being. The explanation for God's existence is in the necessity of his own nature. There is therefore no contradiction between the Principle of Sufficient Reason and the existence of God.
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch, Coughdrop addict

  18. #158
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Legend View Post
    I think you're thinking of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which does not say everything has a creator, but only that everything must have a sufficient explanation for its existence, whether it is in an external cause or in the necessity of its own nature. You're right, there has to be an uncaused First Cause at the end of the causal chain. God is a non-contingent (i.e. necessary) being. The explanation for God's existence is in the necessity of his own nature. There is therefore no contradiction between the Principle of Sufficient Reason and the existence of God.
    What you are trying to do there runs into two problems:

    1) You can only hope to prove the necessity of the thought of God, not of God as an independent being itself, in that way. If you try the latter you make the same mistake as Anselm in his "Ontological Argument".
    2) The concept of God you might hope to prove here is bereft of anything that is so important to Abrahamitic faiths: Mercy, love, interest in human life. The "First Cause"-type God is an unpersonal, interestless philosophical principle without actual agency. Whether or not one has faith in such a principle is meaningless and has nothing to do with Christianity or any other Abrahamitic faith. In fact, the first-cause-God is just an empty label we slap on the unknown answer to a question ("Is there a first cause?").

    Quote Originally Posted by goatmaster View Post
    It seems to me, and I have no great understanding of logic by any means, that that our very existence is conflicting with causation (addressing the OP).

    The fact is, as I understand it, is that causation is essentially the fundamental that everything is a result of another action. It is a principle in logic, for something to exist, it has to be "created".

    I believe our very world defies this fundamental to an extent. We know the big bang created the planets, we understand our origins. I see a problem with this theory. We can keep tracing back, we can hypothetically discover what created the stars and whatever created that, ect. The endgame is always that something had a predecessor. Ultimately though, we need to understand that something, somewhere has always existed to start the sequence of events. And "always existing" is no doubt an issue for logical causation.

    Let me know what you think, maybe I'm wrong somewhere? after all, there are just the thoughts of a logical simpleton
    You're basically going the modern equivalent of Thomas Aquinas' "Quinque Viae", five ways of showing (more or less) logically occuring infinite progressions or regressions. By the postulate that such infinite chains were inadmissible (which is a questionable premise) he claimed their respective endpoints/beginnings to be identical with God in order to prove the latter's existence. However, this runs into the problems I outlined above in response to Dr. Legend. Even if an infinite chain necessitated some endpoint/beginning these would still just be principles of thought, not "actual" beings of any relevance to us.

    There is also the somewhat deeper problem how logics and causation relate. You use them both in your argument, in particular the latter as a content of the former. However, when one examines things more closely it turns out logics and causation are completely different beasts:

    Logics is a-temporal. If A implies B it does so now, then and anytime in the future. Logical "implications" (or any other "operations" of logics for that matter) aren't processes, they are relations (AND, OR, IMPLIES, ...) of juxtaposed statements (A, B, ...). That this may attain a semblance of temporal processes ("A implies B" very much sounds like one, for instance) comes from the fact that the language we use to describe logics is taken from our everyday vocabulary which usually describes temporal processes. If you write it down in formal language however ("A => B") the a-temporal relation becomes much clearer.

    On the other hand the principle of causation is inherently temporal. We require the cause to precede the effect, otherwise we start talking about temporal paradoxa and stuff. Causation is less a logical relation than a recurring structure of thought we use to organise our knowledge about the world and predict future outcomes. The only way causation and logics are linked is intermediately via the natural sciences that examine causal relations in the world and use logics to treat their formalisation. The translation is not simplistic, though, as, for example "A causes B" does not translate to "A implies B" in logics.
    Last edited by Iskar; August 07, 2017 at 09:00 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.

  19. #159
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    To scientifically try to explain the existence of God or just God is something that man hopes will bring an end to the controversy yet for some reason it just hasn't happened one way or another. There are scientists who do believe in God and have science to back that up, yet there are also more scientists who do not believe there is a God and they have their science to back up their belief. Both sets have logic behind their arguments. The only way to know God is by experience and He is pretty particular on whom He gives that experience to. God makes that very clear in Scripture. Faith comes by revelation and revelation from God meaning that it is that experience that rings any change in a person's life. It's God's own work to the recipient that turns what was illogical into the logical in their case. In Jesus' own words, " No man can come to the father except by Me and no man can come to Me except the Father draws him." What could be more logical than that especially if it rings true in the lives of so many?

  20. #160

    Default Re: Religion and Logics

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    You're basically going the modern equivalent of Thomas Aquinas' "Quinque Viae", five ways of showing (more or less) logically occuring infinite progressions or regressions. By the postulate that such infinite chains were inadmissible (which is a questionable premise) he claimed their respective endpoints/beginnings to be identical with God in order to prove the latter's existence. However, this runs into the problems I outlined above in response to Dr. Legend. Even if an infinite chain necessitated some endpoint/beginning these would still just be principles of thought, not "actual" beings of any relevance to us.

    There is also the somewhat deeper problem how logics and causation relate. You use them both in your argument, in particular the latter as a content of the former. However, when one examines things more closely it turns out logics and causation are completely different beasts:

    Logics is a-temporal. If A implies B it does so now, then and anytime in the future. Logical "implications" (or any other "operations" of logics for that matter) aren't processes, they are relations (AND, OR, IMPLIES, ...) of juxtaposed statements (A, B, ...). That this may attain a semblance of temporal processes ("A implies B" very much sounds like one, for instance) comes from the fact that the language we use to describe logics is taken from our everyday vocabulary which usually describes temporal processes. If you write it down in formal language however ("A => B") the a-temporal relation becomes much clearer.

    On the other hand the principle of causation is inherently temporal. We require the cause to precede the effect, otherwise we start talking about temporal paradoxa and stuff. Causation is less a logical relation than a recurring structure of thought we use to organise our knowledge about the world and predict future outcomes. The only way causation and logics are linked is intermediately via the natural sciences that examine causal relations in the world and use logics to treat their formalisation. The translation is not simplistic, though, as, for example "A causes B" does not translate to "A implies B" in logics.
    I do not know that the concept of infinite chains is questionable, I have spent some time thinking about it and reading, I do not see any other outcome? Somewhere along the line something must have simply always existed to spark the creation of what we know today. I would ask why the idea of infinite chains doesn't require a beginning? I Know you have an explanation, as if you didn't you wouldn't bother stating that, but I would like to hear it out of curiosity, this is all very interesting to me, and I enjoy the discussion. As for principles of thought vs. actual beings, I do not seek to prove any concept of God in my posts. I do not believe it is possible for any human to do, if it is indeed not by me. All I am doing is pondering what I perceived was an parallel inconstancy that both atheists and theists experience.

    Thanks for the explanation of logic vs causation, very helpful by the way.

Posting Permissions

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