Religion

[sweetnpetite]

Truth claim... we use that term a lot. I wasn't about to get /that/ hobo going, but its a good point.

I like religious discussions, for the same reason, I probably would have approached this one differently had I been warmly referenced. : )

Sorry Joe,

But you can be so exasperating!

Remember when you asked, what can logic not solve? I don't know what it can't solve, but it can't explain everything and it can't help you understand everything.

Like what?

Like abstract art, the the illogical behavior of illogical human beings, like instrumental music, like why we are still talking about this!!!!!

Warmly, exasperatedly, and illogically,

Sweet.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I think that this summs up the thread pretty well.

'You are old, Father William', the young man said,
'And your hair has become very white;
And yet you incessantly stand on your head --
Do you think, at your age, it is right?'

'In my youth', Father William replied to his son,
'I feared it might injure the brain;
But, now that I'm perfectly sure I have none,
Why, I do it again and again.'

'You are old', said the youth, 'as I mentioned before,
And have grown most uncommonly fat;
Yet you turned a back-somersault in at the door --
Pray, what is the reason of that?'

'In my youth', said the sage, as he shook his grey locks,
'I kept all my limbs very supple
By the use of this ointment - one shilling the box -
Allow me to sell you a couple?'

'You are old', said the youth, 'and your jaws are too weak
For anything tougher than suet;
Yet you finished the goose, with the bones and the beak -
Pray, how did you manage to do it?'

'In my youth', said his father, 'I took to the law,
And argued each case with my wife;
And the muscular strength, which it gave to my jaw,
Has lasted the rest of my life.'

'You are old', said the youth, 'one would hardly suppose
That your eye was as steady as ever;
Yet you balanced an eel on the end of your nose -
What made you so awfully clever?'

'I have answered three questions, and that is enough,'
Said his father, 'don't give yourself airs!
Do you think I can listen all day to such stuff?
Be off, or I'll kick you downstairs!'

 

[sweetnpetite]

I've also seen that science tries to deny the existence of God (while officially not doing so "because you cannot disprove God"). They believe that science is God - that all things can be ultimately explained by science.

---or logic.

IMO the path to enlightenment is in both faith (God) and knowledge (science). I believe the science - the algebra of the universe - comes from the way God made the universe. I tend to believe all faiths have pieces of the truth.

Yes, I like this outlook of science.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
Sorry Joe,

But you can be so exasperating!

Remember when you asked, what can logic not solve? I don't know what it can't solve, but it can't explain everything and it can't help you understand everything.

Like what?

Like abstract art, the the illogical behavior of illogical human beings, like instrumental music, like why we are still talking about this!!!!!

Warmly, exasperatedly, and illogically,

Sweet.

As a closure... even abstract art is reviewed and analyzed with reason (one of the more remarkable things I learned, once, from an artists when I told him that his art was irrational).

 

[sweetnpetite]

As a closure... even abstract art is reviewed and analyzed with reason (one of the more remarkable things I learned, once, from an artists when I told him that his art was irrational).

Yes, it can be reviewed or analyzed, but not truly understood. Because if the perpose was to understand it on a logic level, it would be expressed in a logical form.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
Yes, it can be reviewed or analyzed, but not truly understood. Because if the perpose was to understand it on a logic level, it would be expressed in a logical form.

Dunno. If it can be analyzed with reason, it is possible to understand it with reason (at least, its not impossible by essence or definition). I put it in the same category as "emotionally troubled people"... analysis, understanding, prediction and influence. All can be handled via reason.

I may be totally off base, but I don't think so. Ultimately, I don't think we're talking about something that is necessarily logically understandable or not.

 

[gauchecritic]

To be honest, there isn't anything wrong with the logic.

I am not denying that everywhere /is/ everywhere. I'm saying that /you/ said that "if God is omnipresent, then he is infinite"

Omnipresent means "exists at all places at all times".

IF "all places" is a limited (finite) number of places, then God being omnipresent only extends to a limited (finite) number of places.

God, then, isn't infinite, based on presence.

I'm not saying anything about infinity not being everywhere. I'm saying that "presence" cannot be "infinite", if "all places" equates to a finite number. No secret dictionaries. No spooky definitions.

That is, I'm afraid, perfectly logical.

It's completely falacious. (and automatic gainsaying to boot)

I say all places are infinity by definition, simply by use of the word 'all' and you are saying no they're not. Then you're using "no they're not" as logical evidence.

The "all places in a room" doesn't work either because defining the room precludes infinity in its definition.

I say a (all places) = b (infinity)

If G = a then G also = b.

Therefore God is infinite.

You essentially say God is not infinite because all places doesn't = infinity. And that's just gainsaying.

Gauche

 

[sweetnpetite]

The usual conclusion has been that love includes a broad spectrum of things, and that all of them are love, even though they are not each other. Much like Burly's jewel, maybe.

I just really liked that. Something real good to think about hidden within a really good argument which was, nevertheless, making my head spin!

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by gauchecritic
It's completely falacious. (and automatic gainsaying to boot)

I say all places are infinity by definition, simply by use of the word 'all' and you are saying no they're not. Then you're using "no they're not" as logical evidence.

But... "all places" isn't "infinity" by definition. I'm totally looking at what "all" and "places" could possibly mean... and none of it is "infinite by definition". What definition are you using?

The "all places in a room" doesn't work either because defining the room precludes infinity in its definition.

...um... yeah. Room, 50 million light years across and wide, the size of a brick... possibility is allowed to refute statements of absolution.

[

I say a (all places) = b (infinity)

If G = a then G also = b.

Your first premise is inaccurate. "All" isn't synonymous with "infinity".

Therefore God is infinite.

False conclusion, as a =/ b.

You essentially say God is not infinite because all places doesn't = infinity. And that's just gainsaying.

Gauche

Actually, if you want to get down to it (and correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points):

1) You said "If God is omnipresent, then God is infinite"
2) Omnipresent means "being in all places at all times"
3) "All" can mean anything from one to an infinite number ('cause I'm not certain zero counts, but we're not actuall talking about that, so we don't have to worry about it)
4) Given that "all" can mean anything fron one to infinity, we have to decide what "all" means.
5) IF all means infinity, then God is infinite (valid argument)
6) IF all means a finite number, then God is not infinite (valid argument)

So, your statement of "If God is omnipresent, then God is infinite" is not actually accurate. Its as I said "If God is omnipresent, then God may or may not be infinite" (pending on whether the universe is finite or not).

Dude, I'm entirely staring at the symbolic logic here. I'm looking at your post and my responses to it. I am technically accurate in my position. "All" does not necessarily mean "infinite"... as such, your assertion is inaccurate.

Now, because I used to know a thing or two about logic once upon a time, I'd be sure delighted if you could point out where I am being "fallacious". You haven't, yet. (unless there's a new fallacy I'm not privvy to)

(and, I have no idea what sort of debate background you've had, but gainsaying is legitimate... all gainsaying is "declaring something untrue or invalid" or "contradicting or opposing"... so long as the premises for them are accurate, no that's not fallacious.)

 

[Pure]

this gainsaying is becoming omnipresent... but I hope not infinite.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Pure
this gainsaying is becoming omnipresent... but I hope not infinite.

Cute.

(and very accurate)

 

[sweetnpetite]

I've only been responding. Have to grant me at least that much.

Beyond that, I don't dislike spicy prose... but there are levels of lyrical-ness that just start interfering with understanding. Faulkner's social essay comes to mind--beautifully written, but you couldn't find his point if it were highlighted for you.

At last, something logic cannot solve for you!

Perhaps if you put logic aside and try other methods??

Then again, for all I know, he never even *had* a point.

My purpose, Joe, was not to prove that you where wrong, but to help you understand why and how my meanings are different than yours. Or *why* some of us can believe things that you consider contradictory.

It doesn't require that you try to disprove* me, but that you try and see if you can understand* me.

Perhaps you can't. Perhaps we are all to illogical for you, just as Spock never fully understood Kirk

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
At last, something logic cannot solve for you!

Perhaps if you put logic aside and try other methods??

Then again, for all I know, he never even *had* a point.

My purpose, Joe, was not to prove that you where wrong, but to help you understand why and how my meanings are different than yours. Or *why* some of us can believe things that you consider contradictory.

It doesn't require that you try to disprove* me, but that you try and see if you can understand* me.

Perhaps you can't. Perhaps we are all to illogical for you, just as Spock never fully understood Kirk

Well, I don't think this'll be terribly popular... but here goes. I do understand you, I just think you're wrong. But that's alright, isn't it? I mean, we aren't honor bound to think everyone is always right all the time, are we?

I understood your point (I couldn't understand cants because his grammar wasn't terribly clear, it wasn't a failing of logic), I just find that believing contradictions is parrot-talk. Its like someone saying "I know what a round-square looks like"--they can say that, but no.. they don't.

As such, I find it a kindness that a democratic response be offered up whenever opinions come to bear about things that are irrational or impossible.

 

[cantdog]

I'm still waiting on that "logic is based on empirical" justification. It would go a looooong way to me understanding what you've been talking about.

No, you already understand what I'm talking about. It wouldn't change a blessed thing.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cantdog
No, you already understand what I'm talking about. It wouldn't change a blessed thing.

No, no, I promise. If I understood how "logic is empirical", I thin I'd be a lot closer to understanding half your points (as that one is one of the few I just don't get).

You don't have to write me an article, but I am politely asking that you explain.

 

[amicus]

As there is no evidence supporting the existence of a god of any kind, it is an easy step for one to acknowledge that observation as a workable premise upon which to proceed.

There is also no evidence supporting the existence of any form of intelligent life outside the earth.

Which is also sufficient ground upon which to formulatee a workable premise.

Therefore, no creator, no other life in the universe.

What then is the purpose of life?

What is life?

What is the purpose of the universe?

Just for the sake of a discussion beginning with a common foundation, that is to say, no creator, no other life in the universe; how does begin to think about existence and purpose?

It is any different if your beginning point is no creator, no other life?

If not, why not?

amicus the curious...

 

[sweetnpetite]

amicus,
thanks for reminding us of sweetnpetite; on re reading the first posting, it seems quite well stated. as usually the case, she raises good points. indeed, she has an almost unparalleled record of starting threads with excellent position statements or articles; either of which raise fine issues for debate.

>>>>>I'm blushing<<<<<<<<<<

 

[sweetnpetite]

Honestly, LC, its like someone coming up to you and saying "Border-line Bi-polar means not bi-polar in any way" and then basing an entire argument that says, at the end, "Borderline bi-polar people are liars".

It isn't a matter of "semantics". Its a matter of "your conclusion is wrong and can mislead others because your premise butchers a definition at your convenience". It just isn't prudent to allow errors in understanding to continue.

I'm not trying to disprove religion, here. I'm trying to figure out how someone can say that "logic is emprical" when the word has never, ever meant that. Because the moment people start thinking that logic is empirical, they run the risk of entirely abandoning reason because the tool is broke (when they're just trying to use a hammer as a screwdriver).

Joe,

you are the only logic major here.

you have to try to meet us where we are.

unless we are all just not smart enough to talk to you, because you know way more about the meanings of words and the use of logic and falacies and whatnot.

I don't know how you can complain about spicy language when your own posts read like a textbook written for specialists and are full of the jargon of your specialized field, rather than the simple language that the common folk use to comunicate with each other, sometimes misusing words, sometimes imperfect, but with attempts to understand the spirit of the message above the imperfections of the imperfect tool of language.

perhaps, if you will give us a copy of your transcripts, so that we can all take the same classes you have taken- with the same instructors- we can all be on the same page?

Until then, you will need to make the effort to understand us, to the best of our current abilty to express ourselves.

 

[gauchecritic]

How is "all places" not "infinity"?

All places. each word is accented equally. Accent fallacy? (odds on)

All places is not proved to be infinity. Ad Hoc?

Taking only all as the arguement. Amphibolly?

All places hasn't been proven infinite. ad ignorantium?

G =/ b because a is falacious and =/b. ad logicam? (my favourite)

(I won't go the sarcasm route and say ad misericordiam)

"because I used to know a thing or two about logic once upon a time" ad vericundiam?

All places may or may not be equal to infinity. Bifurcation?

God is not infinite because,
omnipresent = all places at all times
all places and all times =/ infinity
Therefore God is not infinite. Circulus in demonstrando? (Ok I had to twist that one a bit)

If God is omnipresent
and if omnipresent =/ infinity
then God =/infinity. converting a conditional?

3) "All" can mean anything from one to an infinite number. equivocation?

God is not infinite because omnipresence is not infinity,petitio principii?

Edited to add:

Reification?

Gauche

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
Joe,

you are the only logic major here.

you have to try to meet us where we are.

unless we are all just not smart enough to talk to you, because you know way more about the meanings of words and the use of logic and falacies and whatnot.

I don't know how you can complain about spicy language when your own posts read like a textbook written for specialists and are full of the jargon of your specialized field, rather than the simple language that the common folk use to comunicate with each other, sometimes misusing words, sometimes imperfect, but with attempts to understand the spirit of the message above the imperfections of the imperfect tool of language.

perhaps, if you will give us a copy of your transcripts, so that we can all take the same classes you have taken- with the same instructors- we can all be on the same page?

Until then, you will need to make the effort to understand us, to the best of our current abilty to express ourselves.

Honestly, I think that's fair.

 

[sweetnpetite]

For instance, a "spiritual truth" that said "the world is held up by a great big elephant" is false if there isn't a great big elephant holding the world up. Calling it a "spiritual X" doesn't change it being subject to "X" (truth).

How do you know that the world isn't held up by a great big elephant? What if I believe that it is held up by a great big elephant, but not literally so? For instance, my metaphore that the world is held up by an elephant helps me to comprehend things that are true by Joe's definition about the world that are just beyond my grasp to understand literally, and it helps me to achieve a healthy and fulfilling life. Such as the belief that 'He's got the whole world in his hands' What if it is false that the world is held in the literal world of god? Does that make the spirital truth that 'he's got the whole world in his hands' false?

I believe that Santa Clause is real.

Not literally real, but real nonetheless.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by gauchecritic
How is "all places" not "infinity"?

Because the "all places" doesn't mean "infinity", unless you're using some strange definition of "all" that equates to "infinity". Again, I'd be delighted to know where you're getting that.

All places is not proved to be infinity. Ad Hoc?

The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations--thus, an isolated explanation that has no rational bearing. To say that "all places" isn't necessarily "infinity" isn't Ad hoc, its applicable to other situations ("all books" isn't necessarily "infinity"; "all people" isn't necessarily "infinity"; etc.)

Your use of fallacy, here, is actually just wrong.

Taking only all as the arguement. Amphibolly?

Amphiboly occurs when the premises used in an argument are ambiguous because of careless or ungrammatical phrasing. Focusing on "all" isn't amphiboly; I could focus on "places", but are you really asserting that "places" means "infinity"?

All places hasn't been proven infinite. ad ignorantium?

The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. I haven't said that "because you haven't proven that 'all places' means 'infinity'" that your argument is wrong... I'm saying that "all places" doesn't mean "infinity" unless a special sort of circumstance is also true (namely, that the universe is infinite). That's not Ignoratium. That's solid, safe logic.

G =/ b because a is falacious and =/b. ad logicam? (my favourite)

This is the "fallacy fallacy" of arguing that a proposition is false because it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument. I said that G=b is a false conclusion because one of its premises (a=b) is wrong. That's not ad logicum; that's good logic.

"because I used to know a thing or two about logic once upon a time" ad vericundiam?

I wasn't appealing to authority. I was saying that I'd be delighted for you to show me my fallacies. That's not actually an appeal to authority, as I'm not supporting a conclusion with the premise "I know logic". If anything, I was saying that I don't understand how I'm fallacious, and asked if you could clarify--that also isn't appeal to authority.

All places may or may not be equal to infinity. Bifurcation?

Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy and "false dichotomy", bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.

Um... that isn't bifurcation, gauche. It isn't a false dichotomy. Either "all places" equals infinity or "all places" doesn't equal infinity. The dichotomy exists, but its not a false one. Its exactly the same rational assertion as "I am either a bachelor or I am married". That's not a false dichotomy.

God is not infinite because,
omnipresent = all places at all times
all places and all times =/ infinity
Therefore God is not infinite. Circulus in demonstrando? (Ok I had to twist that one a bit)

This fallacy occurs if you assume as a premise the conclusion which you wish to reach. Now you're just simply misquoting me entirely... I said God /might/ not be infinite (based on presence) because we haven't established whether the universe is infinite or finite. No fallacy there. Again, that's just good logic.

If God is omnipresent
and if omnipresent =/ infinity
then God =/infinity. converting a conditional?

This fallacy is an argument of the form "If A then B, therefore if B then A." If I were committing this fallacy, it would have looked like this... "God is not equal to infinity, therefore God is omnipresent finitely". My argument is "God may or may not be infinite, pending whether the universe is finite or infinite". Again, not fallacious.

3) "All" can mean anything from one to an infinite number. equivocation?

Equivocation occurs when a key word is used with two or more different meanings in the same argument. My assertion isn't equivocation as "all" actually /can/ mean those things. Rather, its the opposite of equivocation because I acknowledge the possible range of things "all" can encompass.

God is not infinite because omnipresence is not infinity,petitio principii?

This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. But... no... I'm not begging the question at all. I'm saying "God may or may not be infinite". Name ONE place where I've said "God is not infinite" (where I haven't substantiated the claim with "may or may not be" or other "possibility"). What you're saying can be "begging the question", but I never said that. Misquoting is dangerous.

Look, I'd love to reach an accord about this, and if you take offense to this than I really am sorry. It isn't meant to be offensive--and I never bring up qualification in arguments (unless people start using the terminology)... but have you ever actually taken Logic before?

You claim a LOT of fallacies, but none of them are actually accurate. I mean... damn. I have believe you found a list of fallacies on a website somewhere and just went down the list until you found stuff that sounded about right. Its /way/ more involved than that. First, you can't misquote someone and call that a fallacy; second, you have to use them properly for them to have any meaning, in the first place.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Religion

Religion may be a system, but systems are still subject to truth if the religion makes any claims to how the universe actually is. Its like saying "we can't ever say that science is wrong, because its a system". Systems are not immune to truth-value, most especially if they make truth-claims. For instance "fags are unnatural and all go to hell" is a religious statement, let's say that "fags are unnatural and are all going to hell" is a religion. Just because its a "system", doesn't mean that it isn't subject to truth... I mean, if that were the case, any belief would be a "system" and none would ever be wrong--including ones like "I own all the money in the bank" and "you deserve to be shot by me".



Those systems would be wrong because they wouldn't work. You would end up in jail if you acted on those systems. If however, they did work --such as your lawyer was able to prove justifiable homicide-- then you would have a working system.

I didn't say that all systems work, just that those that work for one, but maybe not for another are valid for the one that they work for, even though they may not be valid for the other. If all of my music is on 8track, then a casset player is not valid for me, no matter how great it is at playing your tapes.




?

Religions /can/ say true things, yes. I agree there (because it is logically possible). I don't understand the "stop short" part. They don't necessarily stop short. Some might, I wouldn't know. I'd have to have direct understanding of spiritual actuality to know if they have or haven't told the whole story. I don't have that.

Exactly, no one does. So therefore they must all stop short.



A partial truth may not be a truth at all... for instance "The US shot only 4,000 people in all the Gulf War" (let's assume that to be true, for a sec). If I make that a partial statement of "The US shot only 4,000 people in all war"... that's not a "partial truth". That statement is actually false, by itself.

"Partial truths" aren't necessarily "Truths" at all.

Now, if you have two contradictory statements like "I believe all homosexuals are going to Heaven" (given standard definitions of Heaven and homosexuals and all that) AND "I believe all homosexuals are going to Hell" (again, given standard definitions). One can no sooner believe both of those at the same time than one can concieve of a round square.

*unless* those are incomplete statements.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Well, I don't think this'll be terribly popular... but here goes. I do understand you, I just think you're wrong. But that's alright, isn't it? I mean, we aren't honor bound to think everyone is always right all the time, are we?

Well, good then- what are we arguing about? I think your wrong too I think that you are too literal minded and to overly dependant on logic, and possibly too educated and definatly too smug. With all due respect, if you could just suspend your anamotronic mindset once in a while, you'd be an alright guy.

As such, I find it a kindness that a democratic response be offered up whenever opinions come to bear about things that are irrational or impossible.

I have no idea what that means

 

[Guest]

I have no idea what that means

I believe he feels he is smugly patting us on our little heads.