Logic

[Netopia]

<< logic

\Log"ic\, n. [OE. logike, F. logique, L. logica, logice, Gr. logikh` (sc. te`chnh), fr. logiko`s belonging to speaking or reason, fr. lo`gos speech, reason, le`gein to say, speak. See Legend.] 1. The science or art of exact reasoning, or of pure and formal thought, or of the laws according to which the processes of pure thinking should be conducted; the science of the formation and application of general notions; the science of generalization, judgment, classification, reasoning, and systematic arrangement; correct reasoning.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. >>




Emphasis added....

It seems to me that Logic isn't just "...a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration", but that it is making mental sence out of what our senses deliver to our brain. The purest logic can become is when the thought process is devoid of emotion, however, what we consider to be logical will always be flawed because regardless of the purity of our thinking, the absense of perfect and infinite knowledge means that there will always be a HUGE margin for error.

The only thing I can really prove is that I exist... whether I'm in a coma or a bear hybernating in a cave or really am in this reality I think I'm in is questionable. I choose to believe that this reality is true because without that I cannot move forward with any purpose. I propose that even the most "logical" thinker has to accept that his logic is based on unprovable suppositions. In that case, any data which is built on questionable data is questionable itself.

Ultimatly, our attempt to think logically is impossible. I would say that more appropriate would be saying that we attempt to order our thoughts as best we can based on our current knowledge.

Joe

 

[rwahh]

<< To stay on topic, I have never understood a good logical reason to pray to the Christian God. First off, aren't you in your current situation because of him? Shouldn't you be happy with whatever he, in his infinite wisdom, doles out to you? Isn't it arrogant to ask God to change his mind about something? >>



well.. if in fact God exists.. the LOGICAL reason to pray to the Christian God is to go to heavan.. and to make your stay on earth a bit more enjoyable... if i am "because" of him.. doesn't mean i'm a slave... are you a slave to your parents? are you happy with EVERYTHING they do for you? if you're agnostic look at the christian God more like a "fatherly" figure.. not an overpowering God that is liek "WORSHIP ME! AND LIKE WHAT I GIVE YOU"

btw... i didn't know it was possible to be spiritual with atheist tendencies... and ^^ are my views.. just the way I look at God

 

[andaval]

rwahh - As a christian, do you have to pray to God to go to heaven? I thought you just had to accept Jesus as you savior. You say praying will make life more enjoyable, is this just in a meditative sense or do you think God will make things better for you if you pray? I wasn't saying you were a slave, I was suggesting that if God runs everything, your current situation is because that is how God wants it. Praying for God to change his mind seems to me like challenging his authority. As far as God is like a father figure, not "an overpowering God", it seems to me that lots of the Bible that I read made him out to be a lot more like the "WORSHIP ME! AND LIKE WHAT I GIVE YOU" type of God.

Anyway, it is very possible to be spiritual and atheistic. Believing that life is an improbable occurance that we are lucky to have makes it seem more wonderous and amazing to me than if I were here because some guy put me hear. And in case anyone has told you otherwise, it is possible to be moral and atheistic also. I respect life and have deeply held values about justice and right and wrong.

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< To stay on topic, I have never understood a good logical reason to pray to the Christian God. First off, aren't you in your current situation because of him? Shouldn't you be happy with whatever he, in his infinite wisdom, doles out to you? Isn't it arrogant to ask God to change his mind about something? >>



well.. if in fact God exists.. the LOGICAL reason to pray to the Christian God is to go to heavan.. and to make your stay on earth a bit more enjoyable... if i am "because" of him.. doesn't mean i'm a slave... are you a slave to your parents? are you happy with EVERYTHING they do for you? if you're agnostic look at the christian God more like a "fatherly" figure.. not an overpowering God that is liek "WORSHIP ME! AND LIKE WHAT I GIVE YOU"

btw... i didn't know it was possible to be spiritual with atheist tendencies... and ^^ are my views.. just the way I look at God >>


Remains the question why there are (and have been) literally millions of gods, of countless religions.

I fail to see what makes one religion more preferrable to another, or what makes them preferrable over a life without such an ideology in the first place.
I've tried many times to find a logical reason to assume that 'gods' exist, and a reason why religions exist. I've found a reason why religions exist, but no evidence to conclude that 'gods' exist outside of their respective religion.

BTW, also the concept of a 'heaven' and 'hell' in relation with a 'perfect' being, which a god is supposed to be, is flawed, since punishment (follow the rules, and you'll be rewarded; if you don't... burn for eternity) is only possible through ignorance or anger (rage).
Not to mention the futility of these two concepts (heaven & hell), since existance itself is empty, rendering an existance in either of these places useless. This when ignoring the unlikely nature of these concepts.

 

[Capn]

haha, you know the person I thought of when I read the first post was elledan.

JohnnyReb I think you were pretty much correct in your assessment.

 

[Elledan]

<< However, even though assumptions have to be made when using logic, it's also part of a logical reasoning to select the best supported (by evidence) assumptions. See thesises and theories in science.

NOW you are talking about logic.



<< Well all know things that are true, but that we cannot logically express. It is wrong to defend this knowledge as logical, even though it makes sense to us and very easily could be true. >>

E.g.?

All men are created equal (as in US Declaration of Indepenence). This is a statement that I know to be true, I believe it to be self-evident, but I am unable to construct a strictly logical analysis that results in this conclusion. Someone else might be able to, but until then I will call it obvious, but I will not say it's logical. BTW, not being logical isn't the same as being illogical. >>


Not all Humans are 'created' equal. Period.

Especially neurogenesis is such a sensitive process which, combined with the variations in the surrounding environment during the child's youth, leads to significant differences in the brainstructure of individuals. Add to this possible genetical traits which influence these processes and may have an effect on later functioning of the brain, and it becomes clear why Humans are individuals, all as different as fingerprints.



<< So you sometimes prefer subjectivity over objectivity? Right.

Never, but my logical ability has its limits. At these times I do subjectivly accept truth. >>

I will always look for the most objective conclusion, regardless of how difficult it is.



<< Not entirely true. Often a philosophical discussion is based on a number of irrational assumptions. See for example theological debates.

I said standard, not universal. >>

Meaning?


<< Philosophers try to be logical.

In Theological debates, I always enter with certain premises. >>

Which are often irrational and unfounded.


<< If these premises hold true, then my logic stands. If the premise is wrong, then my logic is meaningless (which doesn't make me wrong, just that my logic isn't valid). >>

Conclusion: logic even works with faulty data, until you attempt to apply the corrupted information with 'real' information.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

<< I fail to see what makes one religion more preferrable to another >>



there are several logical arguments that could explain why one religion is more preferrable to another.

one example:

1) humans minds are a product of their environment.
2) human environment vary, across cultures and across time
3) therefore human attitudes and perceptions vary across culture and across time
4) religions vary in how they appeal to the common member
5) human attitudes towards (and perceptions of) religion will vary across cultures and time.

its logically coherent, but based on premises that if incorrect would invalidate the conclusion.

Another thing, there can be logically coherent arguements for subscribing to a religion that have nothing to do with the validity of the religion as a world view.

example:

1) attending the churchX makes me feel good.
2) i like to feel good
3) therefore i will attend churchX

simplistic? perhaps, but the discussion so far has been about apples and oranges and not particularly informative. At least these examples provide a concrete example how logic and religion can interact.

 

[rwahh]

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=spiritual != http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=atheist IMO

yes as a christian you have to pray to God to be forgiven of your sins so you can go to heaven.. and when you pray it's more of asking God to help you out.. like if you're dying or sick.. you could ask to be healed...

i don't believe God controls everything at every moment in time... (i.e. the woman who drowned her 5 kids).. i believe he created the universe and us as well and just lets us do as we please with little interference.... he doesn't control everything at every moment in time so we can "live".. so we can make mistakes.. so we can feel "wonderous and amazing" about ourselves.

about the entire we just appeared seems more illogical than believing in God... it's more logical that something as complex as a human was created by something or someone rather then due to some crazy situations where all the planets aligned with the sun and humans just formed.... like.. if you saw a computer just chillin.. you wouldn't think some silicon decided to form in that shape.. or that the metal decided to form around the entire thing.. you know someone made it... i would like to think of myself mre than just an improbable occurence.

that probably didn't make sense but if you want to exchange views pm me =\

 

[b0mbrman]

Use the logical proof thing for all the stuff you were talking ago:

If xxxx Then yyyy
Assume xxxx
Then ----
Then ----
So yyyy
Therefore, if xxxx then yyyy

 

[JohnnyReb]

Ultimatly, our attempt to think logically is impossible. I would say that more appropriate would be saying that we attempt to order our thoughts as best we can based on our current knowledge.

Netopia,
Absolutely right. This is why logic is a great tool, and that is all.

On your definition, I would emphasize different words:

Log"ic\, n. [OE. logike, F. logique, L. logica, logice, Gr. logikh` (sc. te`chnh), fr. logiko`s belonging to speaking or reason, fr. lo`gos speech, reason, le`gein to say, speak. See Legend.] 1. The science or art of exact reasoning, or of pure and formal thought, or of the laws according to which the processes of pure thinking should be conducted; the science of the formation and application of general notions; the science of generalization, judgment, classification, reasoning, and systematic arrangement; correct reasoning.

I agree, basically, with what you say. My problem is with those who use the word "logic" to add credence to a conclusion, when that conclusion is not based on any identifiable logical analysis.

The conversation I referred to in the original post started by me saying that stating an opinion in absolute terms does not make it a logical argument.

Thanks for the input.

John

 

[Elledan]

<< about the entire we just appeared seems more illogical than believing in God... it's more logical that something as complex as a human was created by something or someone rather then due to some crazy situations where all the planets aligned with the sun and humans just formed.... like.. if you saw a computer just chillin.. you wouldn't think some silicon decided to form in that shape.. or that the metal decided to form around the entire thing.. you know someone made it... i would like to think of myself mre than just an improbable occurence. >>


Something complex can have formed using some very basic rules. Unless someone proves that either something in the universe was created by 'gods', or shows that complex structures can form on their own (including those structures we call 'life'), we can not draw any conclusions, only conclude which option is more likely to be correct.

Fact: a set of simple rules can result in (infinitely) complex shapes (see fractals)

Fact: we do not have any solid evidence pointing towards the existance of 'gods'. There isn't a proper definition of a 'god' either.

Fact: it has been shown that organic molecules, like amino acids, can form under normal circumstances (temperature, pressure etc.).

Conclusion: it is far more likely that life was formed through spontaneous generation than through the actions of these so-called 'gods'.

 

[Elledan]

<< Ultimatly, our attempt to think logically is impossible. I would say that more appropriate would be saying that we attempt to order our thoughts as best we can based on our current knowledge.

Netopia,
Absolutely right. This is why logic is a great tool, and that is all. >>


What other than logic can be used to remain objective?

 

[andaval]

rwahh - That dictionary meaning didn't really cover what I meant by spiritual. I meant more a sense of harmony with the world. Anyway, we can PM if you want, but there were some logical questions I had about your response: You say God created the universe, and us, and then had very little interference. Do you think that he created the universe ~4 billion years ago, and then did nothing until relatively recently when he created humans? Or did he create the universe and humans at the same time, and if so, when?



<< about the entire we just appeared seems more illogical than believing in God... it's more logical that something as complex as a human was created by something or someone rather then due to some crazy situations where all the planets aligned with the sun and humans just formed.... like.. if you saw a computer just chillin.. you wouldn't think some silicon decided to form in that shape.. or that the metal decided to form around the entire thing.. you know someone made it... i would like to think of myself mre than just an improbable occurence. >>



You claim that one view is more logical than the other, but don't use logic to back it up. I happen to think that is much more unlikely that there is some kind of super-force existing outside of our space-time that is all-knowing and all-powerful who created the universe out of nothing than that the universe was created in a way that science can eventually explain. One of the tenets of evolutionary theory is that of course life is going to look somewhat intelligently designed after a long enough period -- environmental pressures make sure that only what works well survives. Of course manufactured goods are going to look made though, I don't see that as a very convincing analogy. Just because you would like to believe that you are more than an improbable occurence doesn't make it so, in fact, I would like you to think some more about that statement. Of course we would all like to be special, and in the center of the universe. I think that that is a major draw for religion, that it makes everyone feel as if they have a special place in the universe. The more you want to believe something, the more careful you should be in analyzing the evidence for it. Most people who believe in religion claim that they do because of apparent "intelligent design," but they will say that other people believe in religion because it is "comforting" to them. If people of faith use logic to justify their beliefs, then what do they have left?

 

[JohnnyReb]

Not all Humans are 'created' equal. Period.

Equal - 1 a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : EQUIVALENT b : like in quality, nature, or status c : like for each member of a group, class, or society <provide equal employment opportunities>

Elledan,
Your justification for the above statment doesn't match the premise being disputed. I stated that it was obvious that all men are created equal. I did not say identical.

John

 

[JohnnyReb]

What other than logic can be used to remain objective?

Why try to be completely objective? I do not believe it to be an obtainable goal. Personal feelings, prejudices, and interpretations are, in many ways, assets.

Objective - expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

There are many things one can be completely objective about, but by definition, it won't be any of the important things in life.

John

 

[andaval]

JohnnyReb - what are you saying, that "all men are created equal" means that there are the same number or amount of them? In what ways do you consider people to be equal? I think if two people were equal, they would have to be exactly the same. If you had two identical computer systems, except that one had a 2X CDROM and the other had a 52X, would they be "equal?" Even one thing being different implies that the systems are not equal. I think it is obvious that people are very unequal, some people are stronger, or smarter, or taller, or nicer, etc. than others. It doesn't even balance out, some people are just more capable than others. Of course, I believe that we should all have the same rights, but we are not all "equal." The reason you cannot find a logical argument to prove that people are all equal is because they aren't. Here is a logical argument that shows they are not equal:

IF two things are equal, then they are equivalent.

NO two people are alike, we are all different from everyone else in some way (DNA for one way)

NO two people are equivalent, and THEREFORE not equal.

 

[Russ]

After reading this thread, I have logically concluded that none of the participants will be swayed by any of the arguments. Thus, from a logical point of view, this thread accomplishes nothing more then to present yet another opportunity for ego gratification.

Russ, NCNE

 

[andaval]

Russ - If this thread is only for ego gratification, and you posted in it, you only posted to gratify your own ego? How illogical...

 

[Russ]

andaval,

Considering that I, too, am possessed of an ego it is not at all illogical for me to post in this thread.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Russ]

BTW, I would point out that if all of these discussions/debates/arguments/flame wars were actually based purely and simply on logic, and all dissertations presented as such, this place would be as boring and tedious as latrine duty.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Elledan]

<< What other than logic can be used to remain objective?

Why try to be completely objective? >>

Because it's an admirable property.


<< I do not believe it to be an obtainable goal. >>

Sure, it's unlikely that one can ever completely be objective, but by trying, you're already more objective than you would be otherwise.


<< Personal feelings, prejudices, and interpretations are, in many ways, assets. >>

Logic does not necessarily exclude emotions, desires and feelings, but won't let these interfere. Prejudice is a despisable quality, though.



<< Objective - expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

There are many things one can be completely objective about, but by definition, it won't be any of the important things in life. >>

Because...?

That's a bad habit of you: making statements without even bothering to give your reasoning.

 

[rwahh]

about the creation of humans + the universe.. i don't know.. i'm not going to pretend i do.. i have theories.. but i know as much as you on that topic.. according to the Bible universe + humans in 6 days... then again the 6 days are relative.. possible that it was 6 billion years to create the universe... heck.. God could have used the Big Bang to create the universe, the bible sometimes isn't as direct as we would like.. i just believe that God is somewhere behind our creation

being the center of the universe works both ways..

<< Believing that life is an improbable occurance that we are lucky to have makes it seem more wonderous and amazing to me than if I were here because some guy put me hear. >>

that seems more of feeling special, i didn't mean to give off the impression that i thought i was the center of the universe or anything like that...

you might want to believe that you weren't created by God but it doesn't change the fact that we were... the only thing Christians have for proof is a few scrolls and artifacts.. but mainly it's FAITH... faith is a real hard concept.. but atheists are the exact same way.. they have 'theories' on how man was created and FAITH in science (i guess?)


what proof do atheists use to back up their beliefs.. a scientific theory? i haven't really seen any atheist points of view but i'm extremely interested in hearing/seeing some

btw i'm not defending religion.. just God... and i absolutely suck at getting my thoughts onto the internet.. i re-read that and it's complete sh!t

 

[JohnnyReb]

JohnnyReb - what are you saying, that "all men are created equal" means that there are the same number or amount of them? In what ways do you consider people to be equal? I think if two people were equal, they would have to be exactly the same. If you had two identical computer systems, except that one had a 2X CDROM and the other had a 52X, would they be "equal?" Even one thing being different implies that the systems are not equal. I think it is obvious that people are very unequal, some people are stronger, or smarter, or taller, or nicer, etc. than others. It doesn't even balance out, some people are just more capable than others. Of course, I believe that we should all have the same rights, but we are not all "equal." The reason you cannot find a logical argument to prove that people are all equal is because they aren't. Here is a logical argument that shows they are not equal:

IF two things are equal, then they are equivalent.

NO two people are alike, we are all different from everyone else in some way (DNA for one way)

NO two people are equivalent, and THEREFORE not equal.

Very Good. This depends on equal equaling equivalent (<== fun to write), which is only part of the defintion. Looking above, you could also say "of the same measure" or "like in status". These would place my premise outside of your "proof".

 

[Elledan]

<< Not all Humans are 'created' equal. Period.

Equal - 1 a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : EQUIVALENT b : like in quality, nature, or status c : like for each member of a group, class, or society <provide equal employment opportunities>

Elledan,
Your justification for the above statment doesn't match the premise being disputed. I stated that it was obvious that all men are created equal. I did not say identical.

John >>

In that case a monkey is equal to a Human? Hmm...

'Equal' implies that there are some common features which link two or more individuals and identifies them as a group. All Primates are therefore seperable in two groups, monkeys and apes, where Humans belong to the latter.

Happy now?

 

[andaval]

JohnnyReb- go ahead and replace "equivalent" with "like in status" or "of the same measure." The argument still holds. Besides, are you saying equivalent doesn't mean equal?

rwahh - I know it's not always easy to get across what you mean. There are a couple of major points I would like to address:

You should probably stay away from saying things like its a fact that we were created by God, at least not without some semblance of a proof.
You assume atheists want to believe that there is no God. That is just what the evidence has led them to. If there was a God, that would be fine with me. This kind of argument is commonly used against people who are skeptical of ESP, for example. Hell, I think it would be awesome if people had ESP. But there is no evidence supporting this.
There is a VERY big difference between faith in a religion and believing in science. If you doubt a scientific claim, you (and I mean you personally) can conduct experiments to test that claim. All scientific claims come under rigorous scrutiny from the scientific community. You have to be able to prove things and defend your ideas. Does anyone ever stand up in church and demand evidence of miracles or God's existence?
The general atheistic point of view is that the burden of proof is not on atheists, it is on theists (not deists, yellowperil, that's a different matter). If I told you that there was a purple teacup orbiting Saturn, would you expect me to show you proof, or is it your responsibility to prove me wrong?