|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted December 01, 2007 04:24 AM |
|
|
@Mytical -
My gripe is the following, and I'll say it and be done with it. I spend a lot of time on posts in serious threads like this. Thus maybe you can appreciate my consternation at the fact that, when you delete all your posts for seemingly selfish reasons, and hence render several pages of posts from other users impossible to follow and worthless, it essentially means that, because of you, I ultimately wasted a lot of my time. If I came back two months from now and wanted to read over this part of the discussion again - or, worse, if I'm a new poster who wants to read the thread up until the current point - I would be utterly confused. It's basically a matter of respect for the time that your fellow community members spend here posting and reading.
Honestly, I think message boards should prohibit the deletion of posts unless it is the most recent one in a thread, or unless done by a moderator/administrator. Careless deletion of posts by users is just really unfair to the rest of the community.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted December 01, 2007 06:46 AM |
|
|
Last off-topic post I promise. Any other questions and concerns Corribus please HCM me. Or, even start a thread about it. My logic was that if the discussion was off-topic because of my 'misunderstanding' the debate, that it had no place in the thread. For instance, if we were discussing say tires, and I started discussing the Lynx (the animal) and went back to remove those posts, how would it affect the discussion about tires. Even if there were a thousand other posts about the lynx, the tire discussion would still not be affected.
However, I do see your point. I am going through a very bad time in my life. At the time it was about trying to get the discussion back on topic, and made logical sense to me. In hindsight, it is obvious that my emotions clouded my perception. Unfortunately hindsight is better then 20/20. Mostly, however, since you and TA were maticulous about quotations, it interfears little with the discussion.
I won't discuss the way I percieved the replies. I conceeded defeat, it is moot. You've won, please move on.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 01, 2007 07:01 AM |
|
|
You do know that it's not a competition, right? 
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 01, 2007 01:48 PM |
|
|
@TA:
yes God gave us the 'possibility' of getting fat, but hey, a criminal that does not have the 'possibility' (i.e he is in prison) to kill is still a murderer. Just because he can't do it doesn't mean he is good. Apparantely yes, he might look calm, but he's not on the inside. So yep it's the human's fault they get fat. If they couldn't do it, they would still have this fault, on the inside. The thoughts matter 
I understand you think that since God "knows everything" he made us with flaws (in our thinking, greed, etc.) and from your logic I would agree. But keep in mind that, no matter how illogical "free will" is to you (a God that created something must and knows everything must have surely put flaws intentionally), it can have a simple meaning in the context of religion (in other words, it's pretty rational to me, and I'm not kidding).
This is again an argument about logic, because you say that stuff (free will) is illogical given an all-knowing God. But you have to understand what I was trying to say some pages ago. That logic and rationality is subjective.
What does this mean? When someone comes and says: "It's like you go every night and look under your bed to look for the boogeyman; it might have an absurd chance of being true, but it's not rational". How can 'he' know what is rational and what is not from my point of view? (i'm not saying I believe in the boogeyman, but hey it's just an example).
People using this sort of saying (about rationality) just simply assume that what they think is rational applies to everyone else as well, but have you wondered how untrue that might be? for example, even though I agree as most people on some things as being rational, other things look for me rational (while for someone else they think it's illogical). So let's take an example.
Someone says: "A God who is all-knowing must surely also control our thoughts, hence it is not possible to have free will" or something like that (i.e opposite of free will). On the other hand, I may have a different interpretation, different thinking on this one. For me, for example, this one makes perfect sense, not in the "normal" way most people use to explain logic. Some so-called paradoxes for me (not related to religion) are also quite rational to me. You see, when using conclusions like "hence it should be dismissed" or similar, you are only stating a subjective opinion. Some people might agree, if not the majority, but we're not interested in popularity here.
The problem with these subjective logics is that it is almost impossible to explain them 100% correct to someone who uses a different logic. Take an alien as an example (or monkeys). If you were to communicate with it, you would not understand what it's point is. This is not because of language, but because of different logics. The same way you can't explain your logic to a monkey (this doesn't imply monkeys are dumber, only that they think different), even if the monkey knew what you were saying. The problem is that whatever you think is rational (like don't put your hand into the fire, simple example) might not be rational for the monkey, and that doesn't make it by any means less intelligent or "psychomaniac" or "crazy" or anything.
and yeah I know when a doctor or psychiatrist calls you crazy, he just doesn't understand what your problem (or logic) is.
I hear countless times that people, especially scientists, like to choose the simple, most logical solution. The problem here is that this is subjective as said. You might prefer, for example, the equation: (a+b)*(a-b) as being simpler than the "a^2 - b^2", but I might think the opposite. In fact, as an extreme example, i might find the equation "(a+b)*(a-b) + (a+b)*(a-b) - a^2 + b^2" simpler than any of the above. While this may sound completely absurd (as there are "unnecessary terms" added) to most people, it may not to me (again, this doesn't mean I think like that, but it's only an example).
And what you say that "God" doesn't allow us to better understand the Universe is subjective also. Why? Well let's analyze what "understanding" means. The meaning is subjective. You may say that "rotations", "physics" and all the math formulas make sense and are rational. A monkey will say that his banana is rational. An alien might say something so terribly illogical by our thinking that we wouldn't even be able to understand it (example: self-thinking computers might use a different logic than us, and that might be the proof if you want). The idea is, whatever you mean by "further understanding of the Universe" is your own, or perhaps 95% of humans, opinion. But popularity doesn't matter simply because if the Earth had only 2 humans and 1 billion aliens (or something that thinks different) then the majority would be the alien logic (which might be illogical) and thus would it make more 'logical' than our logic? It doesn't matter even if only one human has a different logic. You are free to call him/her crazy, but that doesn't rule out his thinking or logic which is entireley different than the others.
If you think that formulas, energy, atoms, electrons, mass, physics, big bang, "reproducible experiments", etc are more "rational" than a God and help you better "understand" (whatever that means, it's subjective, see above) the Universe, then it's your own logic and perhaps you share it with 95% of humans. I partly agree here as well. The problem is, what happens with the rest? I find God pretty "rational" and logical even when you might not. Who's right?
Let us take an example (again, I know I'm boring) with the boogeyman. Let's suppose someone with your age still believes in the boogeyman and looks under his bed every night. When you talk to him, you say there's no reason to believe in him, and hence it is absurd until proven otherwise, so he should stop. He responses calmly that there are a lot of reasons to believe in boogeyman and makes it pretty rational. Your response (i'm talking about a common human's response, not necessarily anyone here) to him would be either of the following:
1) you are immature to believe in such things
2) I can't believe you are still such a baby!! (example  )
3) You must be joking, right?
4) What's rational in the boogeyman? I don't understand.
5) You are definetely in need of a psychotherapy.
6) You are crazy
7) add your own
Let's analyze this a bit. The first response is silly because it's 100% subjective. What makes a thing more immature than another? I understand the boogeyman might not be the best example, but on a philosophical scale, (1) is not a good response and will, at best, be ignored by the guy who believes in the boogeyman.
(2) has all the flaws in (1) but is also an insult.
(3) is perhaps better than (1) though I'm not sure. You assume he is joking since, his logic is far beyond absurd, compared to your logic, or if you want to put it otherwise, compared to how you think about things: i.e you think the boogeyman is an immature thing to believe in or perhaps completely non-rational.
(4) Is perhaps the "best" answer because you are simply stating what you think about his reply: that you do not understand it, simply because he thinks different. Note that thinking different doesn't mean he is crazy, nuts, or brainless. What makes your thinking more rational than his?
(5) Is ignorant. You are suggesting something to him simply because he is different and thinks different. It's relatively the same (in a philosophical extent) to suggesting black people to do a skin surgeon so they become white people, simply because they are different to you white people. Ever wondered that they could, as well, suggest this to you (i.e do a surgeon to become black)? Who is wrong and who is right?
(6) Is an insult and does nothing but show how mad you are when someone else doesn't agree with your logic and is different than you (or simply you don't understand him/her).
"you" in the above example doesn't refer to anyone here on this board, but on a "common" human scale as an example. Next you might argue why he believes in the boogeyman. His answer might be, again, completely irrational or illogical to you. If you're still answering to him calmly, you will probably expect him to prove his claims to you. There are a couple of difficulties here:
(1) He doesn't need to prove it to you because, well, he might not want to (he didn't want to do this anway). The analogy with religion is that people should be taught about religion, but not forced, because forcing them provides no benefit anyway (remember that the "inside" matters, not the "outside"; i.e the thoughts are the most important). If they think and "understand" the religion (i.e with their logic) they might believe or not. Same with science. If people never heard of Big bang, evolution, or science in general, they would never think it existed and perhaps made up a different logic, a different 'science' (unfortunately people think that this works only one way: get rid of religion and teach science (or even force it) because it's more 'logical', see above for this). Perhaps, perhaps when we'll create virtual simulations, we'll see that if people would have a different world they would develop a different science, with a different logic, maybe worse, or maybe better. It depends on the individual's logic. If he thinks God is more logical, and not only that, but really understands this, then why question his capability just because he thinks different than you? What if he suggested the same to you? This works both ways. What makes you more right than him? I'm not asking for a proof or evidence, but it's just a philosophical question.
(2) He might say he "feels" the boogeyman, or maybe he saw him, or maybe something you wouldn't even think of (and me too). You can say he's delusional. How'd you know? Maybe you'll say this because you assume, since you dream and have visions, maybe he has too. And maybe, because you think this cannot be anything else than a vision, so he thinks the same? Well he could be suggesting the same to you, that since he can't comprehend the idea of calculus, it's a delusional thought (an example), and you should seek therapy. Who's right actually? (And i am talking about a neutral perspective!). My answer would be both, since you both are subjective, and therefore both are right in their thinking. You can argue my logic is flawed, but that's only because you use a different logic and think different. Again, being different doesn't make you dumber or smarter.
ok enough about the boogeyman, I'll now briefly talk about 1+1=2 thing.
Explaining why 1+1=2 to a monkey probably will be successful, but try explaining why a plane without wings won't fly or why calculus works the way it does (remember that some people still think calculus is abstract and delusional; for me it's intuitive; this doesn't make me any smarter than them!!). Again, this doesn't imply monkeys are any less intelligent, it only implies that they are different. Like I said, communicating with different logic has difficulties and depending on how "different" they are the communication can as well be impossible.
About the Big bang, some people say they don't care what was before because it cannot be proven. That's fine but remember that not everyone thinks the same. Just because you say it has absolutely no interest and hence should be dismissed doesn't mean everyone else agrees with this logic, like I said.
Or I could start about numbers having actually three components, i, j and k. j and k are complex in your logic. So the "real" number 5 would be:
i*5 + j*0 + k*0
however you'll say that, since 'j' and 'k' are useless here, there's no reason to include them and hence should be dismissed to make the equation simpler. I'd say it makes it more comprehensive and intuitive, because it shows all it's components. And I could say it is simpler with 'j' and 'k'; even though you think simplicity is different. This is fine because we are talking subjective terms. Simplicity and logic are subjective, and since we think different and have different logic, then it's ok if we have different perspectives on simplicity.
sorry for the insanely long post here, but I hope I explained it well enough this time and perhaps it doesn't contain any holes
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted December 01, 2007 02:18 PM |
|
|
@The Death:
Quote:
yes God gave us the 'possibility' of getting fat, but hey, a criminal that does not have the 'possibility' (i.e he is in prison) to kill is still a murderer. Just because he can't do it doesn't mean he is good. Apparantely yes, he might look calm, but he's not on the inside. So yep it's the human's fault they get fat. If they couldn't do it, they would still have this fault, on the inside. The thoughts matter
This analogy may have been correct if eating was comparable to murder. Since when is eating morally wrong?
Quote:
That logic and rationality is subjective.
Hmm.. this is kind of an unrelated philosophical note, but I agree with you on a certain level. Opinions of logic and rationality are subjective. Person A may think that throwing bananas at cats is logical, whereas I might not agree. I think that this is the point you are trying to make.
However I hope you'd agree that there should be something that is considered universally logical, whereas one thing (given the circumstances) either IS or ISN'T logical. Just like morality. While a murderer might think that killing someone in cold blood is morally right, according to a kind of (somewhat idealistic) "universal moral code", he would be wrong. Of course we are talking from a human perspective (as for example aliens may think killing is morally right also, and that just unnecessarily complicates things)
Having said this, I am fully aware that everything I consider logical may be illogical in reference to this external viewpoint of logic.
But I do think that it is important to always act on what YOU THINK is logical, and I can't really see how you can argue otherwise. That would be saying that you should act in a manner that is to your knowledge illogical (which may or may not be logical in terms of the aforementioned universal logic)
This leads to discrepancies but as we are all different this is bound to happen, yet if we don't act based on logic we have NOTHING.
I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make.
Either we should act on our own view of logic, or we should not (and act in the full subjective knowledge that we are being illogical), and I am arguing that we should.
While this leads to disagreements there is no better option.
The message I took from your post was that following logic ignores all other possibilities, which is not necessarily so, but in a general sense I don't see why every single illogical conclusion should be pondered upon before we act.
But then again, that's just my logic.
As to your metaphor with mathematics, I think this is a good one, because obviously thinking that the second equation is simpler, you would be wrong no matter how you look at it (I know you do not really believe it is simpler). One person MUST be right and one person MUST be wrong, and you blatantly cross the definition of simpler and as such are the wrong one. While your opinion is subjective in this case, an ultimate conclusion can be drawn from an external reference point.
Quote:
Why? Well let's analyze what "understanding" means. The meaning is subjective.
Yes, it is subjective. This does not however mean it is automatically wrong. I also agree that the majority does not make something automatically right.
I'm not sure what you're asking me to do other than accept the possibility that I may be wrong, which I have done yet can still continue to argue my subjective contention.
Quote:
. The problem is, what happens with the rest? I find God pretty "rational" and logical even when you might not. Who's right?
Who knows? We discuss it here and lots of people get angry and yell and delete posts etc
As for the boogeyman analogy. Taking this back into the discussion of God my response would be 4, because according to my view of logic, if there is no evidence there is no logical reason to believe in the boogeyman (unless it gives him some strange benefit).
This is of course my logic and it may or may not be right. Maybe acting on evidence is stupid and shallow But I don't think so and that is what I will argue.
I hope this conveys my opinion, as it remains the same for the other points you made (that I didn't quote).
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 01, 2007 02:36 PM |
|
|
Thanks for the quick response
Quote:
This analogy may have been correct if eating was comparable to murder. Since when is eating morally wrong?
well if you take it as greed, it is morally wrong (not to the extent of murder obviously)
Quote:
Having said this, I am fully aware that everything I consider logical may be illogical in reference to this external viewpoint of logic.
Or from someone else's point of view.
Quote:
But I do think that it is important to always act on what YOU THINK is logical, and I can't really see how you can argue otherwise.
Yes that is exactly the point I was trying to make (I never said I am smarter than you because I find something logical while you don't).
The idea is, when you use something like "hence should be dismissed" this is stating from your view; obviously the "universal logic" as you put would be the right answer, but I think (again, I think) that this universal logic is incomprehensible, at least if we are to fully understand it.
Quote:
That would be saying that you should act in a manner that is to your knowledge illogical (which may or may not be logical in terms of the aforementioned universal logic)
Of course I never said I know the "universal logic", cause I think it's incomprehensible.
Quote:
This leads to discrepancies but as we are all different this is bound to happen, yet if we don't act based on logic we have NOTHING.
Yes we have to agree on some things because otherwise we won't be able to communicate and we won't necessarily have NOTHING, but we'll simply not communicate which would lead to extreme individualism.
Quote:
As to your metaphor with mathematics, I think this is a good one, because obviously thinking that the second equation is simpler, you would be wrong no matter how you look at it (I know you do not really believe it is simpler).
It was only an example, I don't really believe it as you said.
However, it won't necessarily be "wrong" however you look at it. If we were to throw it into a self-thinking computer (i.e not biased towards human programming/orders) maybe he'll say the opposite, and even I will be amazed
Quote:
One person MUST be right and one person MUST be wrong, and you blatantly cross the definition of simpler and as such are the wrong one.
My point is we'll never be able to understand the "universal truth" so then it's easier if we assume "everyone thinks they are right". There is no 'rational' reason (at least from my point of view) to try to prove them wrong (especially if we are talking about things like God) because you might as well be the wrong one (or them), again it is hard to choose "which one" and any answer would at best be biased.
Quote:
While your opinion is subjective in this case, an ultimate conclusion can be drawn from an external reference point.
The problem is, as we all know from relativity, that "absolute" points are non-sense (or at least incomprehensible), so we all have to assume a relative point of view.
Quote:
Yes, it is subjective. This does not however mean it is automatically wrong.
Yes of course, it doesn't make it wrong, but the problem is, we can't know.
Quote:
I'm not sure what you're asking me to do other than accept the possibility that I may be wrong, which I have done yet can still continue to argue my subjective contention.
Hey I can be wrong as well, but my "thinking" (and your thinking) tells us that we are right.
Quote:
As for the boogeyman analogy. Taking this back into the discussion of God my response would be 4, because according to my view of logic, if there is no evidence there is no logical reason to believe in the boogeyman (unless it gives him some strange benefit).
What if you saw him in a dream like the guy in my example?
you'll go to the psychiatrist and he'll say it was an illusion, but maybe that was the only evidence you needed, that you saw him.
or maybe something else which I can't even think of (I dunno even how the boogeyman should look like, but hey I like simple examples).
Quote:
This is of course my logic and it may or may not be right. Maybe acting on evidence is stupid and shallow But I don't think so and that is what I will argue.
not necessarily on "evidence", maybe reproducible evidence, or evidence that some "doctor" agrees with. Because if the dream happens every night, he'll call you crazy or in need of therapy.
but maybe that will only make the evidence disappear, like a bomb destroying all the evidence held in a building
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 01, 2007 05:38 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 17:50, 01 Dec 2007.
|
@The Death
Quote:
I understand you think that since God "knows everything" he made us with flaws (in our thinking, greed, etc.) and from your logic I would agree. But keep in mind that, no matter how illogical "free will" is to you (a God that created something must and knows everything must have surely put flaws intentionally), it can have a simple meaning in the context of religion (in other words, it's pretty rational to me, and I'm not kidding).
Free will isn't illogical to me, but it IS incompatible with a all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God.
Quote:
That logic and rationality is subjective.
Logic is not as subjective as you seem to think it is. Either a thought process is logical or it is not. A thought process isn't logical to one person but illogical to another. Rather, the assumptions / information / axiomatic truths used to make a thought process determine whether the thought process is logical. In other words, a deduction can be logical and also incorrect, for the correctness of a logical deduction is only as good as the information on which the logical deduction is made. For instance, if John has an apple in each hand, I can logically conclude that he holds two apples. However, John says that he can logically conclude that he only holds one apple. Is it possible for both of these deductions to be logically correct at the same time? Yes. How? Simple - in fact, one of the apples John was holding was actually an orange that was painted to look like an apple. The important thing is that without knowing that, there was nothing wrong with my logical deduction - it wasn't illogical - but my deduction was incorrect because the information upon which I based my deduction was incorrect. So while we both made logical deductions, only one of us made the correct logical deduction. There's really nothing subjective about this.
Thus to clarify, while John may be able to see the "flaw in my logic", it's not that my logic was flawed in concluding he held two apples. It was that I started with bad information.
Quote:
What does this mean? When someone comes and says: "It's like you go every night and look under your bed to look for the boogeyman; it might have an absurd chance of being true, but it's not rational". How can 'he' know what is rational and what is not from my point of view? (i'm not saying I believe in the boogeyman, but hey it's just an example).
First, beliefs do not have to be logical. In fact, the very essence of "belief" sidesteps the very essence of logic. That is, there's no need to use logic and belief in the same sentence. The fact that you believe something means that logic is unnecessary. Logic (flawed or otherwise) can help you come to hold a belief, and even make you more secure in that belief, but many people believe things for no logical reason. And many people believe things based upon logic which is in turn based upon bad information. And many people believe things for no logical reason DESPITE possessing good information. That's not to say that any of these is necessarily better than another.
Quote:
Someone says: "A God who is all-knowing must surely also control our thoughts, hence it is not possible to have free will" or something like that (i.e opposite of free will). On the other hand, I may have a different interpretation, different thinking on this one. For me, for example, this one makes perfect sense, not in the "normal" way most people use to explain logic. Some so-called paradoxes for me (not related to religion) are also quite rational to me. You see, when using conclusions like "hence it should be dismissed" or similar, you are only stating a subjective opinion. Some people might agree, if not the majority, but we're not interested in popularity here.
Your argument would benefit from a little more specificity.
Quote:
The problem with these subjective logics is that it is almost impossible to explain them 100% correct to someone who uses a different logic. Take an alien as an example (or monkeys). If you were to communicate with it, you would not understand what it's point is. This is not because of language, but because of different logics. The same way you can't explain your logic to a monkey (this doesn't imply monkeys are dumber, only that they think different), even if the monkey knew what you were saying. The problem is that whatever you think is rational (like don't put your hand into the fire, simple example) might not be rational for the monkey, and that doesn't make it by any means less intelligent or "psychomaniac" or "crazy" or anything.
You do know that logic is actually a mathematical discipline, don't you? Math doesn't change just because you're a monkey.
Quote:
I hear countless times that people, especially scientists, like to choose the simple, most logical solution.
Scientists DO often like to chose the most simple solution. Obviously. But there aren't degrees of "logicalness" to solutions. (if you think there are, please offer an example) Either a deduction is logical or it isn't. If it is, then it qualifies as a possible solution. If it isn't logical, it doesn't qualify. That's just basic science. Many solutions can be logically sound. In that case, experiments are done to determine which one is correct. As more information is acquired, previously logical deductions become illogical. Through eliminating the vast host of incorrect logical possibilities, we approach the CORRECT logical one.
Quote:
The problem here is that this is subjective as said. You might prefer, for example, the equation: (a+b)*(a-b) as being simpler than the "a^2 - b^2", but I might think the opposite. In fact, as an extreme example, i might find the equation "(a+b)*(a-b) + (a+b)*(a-b) - a^2 + b^2" simpler than any of the above. While this may sound completely absurd (as there are "unnecessary terms" added) to most people, it may not to me (again, this doesn't mean I think like that, but it's only an example).
Degree of simplicity may be subjective, and certainly there is no assurance that "rightness" has anything to do with simplicity (although it is often the case) but your example here has nothing to do with logic. It basically depends on the definition of simplicity. Once you specify a definition, your supposed ambiguity disappears. For instance, if we agree that the definition is the fewest number of terms, then the first solution is undoubtedly the simplest and there is not subjectivity in that conclusion. But more to the point, your examples above are all fundamentally the same solution (they would all be correct, because they are equivalent) and so it really doesn't illustrate anything you are trying to say about different solutions to a problem.
Quote:
And what you say that "God" doesn't allow us to better understand the Universe is subjective also. Why? Well let's analyze what "understanding" means. The meaning is subjective. You may say that "rotations", "physics" and all the math formulas make sense and are rational. A monkey will say that his banana is rational. An alien might say something so terribly illogical by our thinking that we wouldn't even be able to understand it (example: self-thinking computers might use a different logic than us, and that might be the proof if you want).
Right.. but this isn't due to any subjectivity in the nature of logic. It is due to different bodies of information that is held to be correct by these different groups. An alien with a sufficiently advanced technology may very well be able to make a logical deduction that you and I cannot. You and I, have less knowledge, would either not be able to make a logical deduction at all or would make a very different one. But again that's not due to subjectivity in what constitutes a logical deduction, but rather is due to very different knowledge, which is fundamental to making a correct and logical deduction. In other words, there are correct logical deductions, and there are incorrect logical deductions (and incorrect illogical deductions and, possible, correct illogical deductions), and the difference between these is the information that we have at our disposal.
Quote:
The idea is, whatever you mean by "further understanding of the Universe" is your own, or perhaps 95% of humans, opinion. But popularity doesn't matter simply because if the Earth had only 2 humans and 1 billion aliens (or something that thinks different) then the majority would be the alien logic (which might be illogical) and thus would it make more 'logical' than our logic? It doesn't matter even if only one human has a different logic. You are free to call him/her crazy, but that doesn't rule out his thinking or logic which is entireley different than the others.
I reiterate, it's not that the nature of logic changes, but the nature of information. And you're right, argument from popularity (argumentum ad populum) is not a logical deduction.
Quote:
If you think that formulas, energy, atoms, electrons, mass, physics, big bang, "reproducible experiments", etc are more "rational" than a God and help you better "understand" (whatever that means, it's subjective, see above) the Universe, then it's your own logic and perhaps you share it with 95% of humans. I partly agree here as well. The problem is, what happens with the rest? I find God pretty "rational" and logical even when you might not. Who's right?
Explain to me how the conclusion that God created the universe is a rational. Use the form of an equation, please. I'm not being a jerk. If you believe it can be a logical deduction, I'd like to see the logic. (And I may accept your logic if you can show it to me... of course that doesn't mean I will accept it to be the CORRECT logical deduction). For that matter, the belief that God does NOT exist is just as hard to show. I may hold the belief that God does not exist... but I'm not sure that I could logically show it to be so. A belief doesn't require logic. Which is the whole point.
Quote:
Let us take an example (again, I know I'm boring) with the boogeyman. Let's suppose someone with your age still believes in the boogeyman and looks under his bed every night.
Notice that you use the world "belief" here. A child believing in the boogeyman is not necessary a logical deduction. When I was a kid, and watched the Alien movie for the first time, I was convinced that Aliens were hiding in my closet. Was that a logical deduction? No. Nevertheless, I believed it to be so.
Quote:
When you talk to him, you say there's no reason to believe in him, and hence it is absurd until proven otherwise, so he should stop. He responses calmly that there are a lot of reasons to believe in boogeyman and makes it pretty rational. Your response (i'm talking about a common human's response, not necessarily anyone here) to him would be either of the following:
No, I would ask him what his "logical reasons" are, and then, if he coudl give me any, I would proceed to use logic and good information to demonstrate how his conclusion is not logical. If I couldn't - because this is most liekly not a logical deduction - then I'd just have to comfort him the best that I could. Beliefs are hard to change, especially those not based on logical deductions, as you well know.
Quote:
Same with science. If people never heard of Big bang, evolution, or science in general, they would never think it existed and perhaps made up a different logic, a different 'science' (unfortunately people think that this works only one way: get rid of religion and teach science (or even force it) because it's more 'logical', see above for this). Perhaps, perhaps when we'll create virtual simulations, we'll see that if people would have a different world they would develop a different science, with a different logic, maybe worse, or maybe better. It depends on the individual's logic.
No, they wouldn't develop a "different logic". They would use logic to possibly develop a different hypothesis, based on different knowledge, or even a different hypothesis based on the same knowledge. But I suspect, an alien scientist with the same technology as us would come to the same hypothesis that we have come to.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted December 02, 2007 12:51 AM |
|
|
On the topic of Greed and sin:
Quote:
Quote:
This analogy may have been correct if eating was comparable to murder. Since when is eating morally wrong?
well if you take it as greed, it is morally wrong (not to the extent of murder obviously)
Of course, Greed is bad, ie, when one person takes all for himself, leaves others empty handed etc.
But eating alot when it doesn't harm anyone else (not taking it from anyone or anything), I don't really see why in the eyes of GOD this should be a bad thing. Overweight people are not always greedy, so they can't be said to be equivalent.
Obviously with todays social standards this is a different story, and believe me the argument over whether fat people SHOULD be fat is entirely separate, as it is not socially acceptable.
But I'm talking about sin in the eyes of God in creating a person. Also it could be argued that hunger is given to us by God.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
gallow
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Avenger
|
|
posted December 02, 2007 01:01 AM |
|
|
About book of revelation:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. 16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
That means god dont reveals his plans to anybody,perhaps if the world would know it,maybe chaos would flood all,panic.Actually i´m studying and reading this interesting book,once you started read it you can discover lot of things,one thing that is awesome is when john see this vision about those future days,i got the conclusion about the number or "code" 666,could be perhaps a chip might be implanted in persons.Already was tested thought i´m not sure  in which country,but something im sure,at least i wouldn´t never let the goverment obligue people to use that "chip" or artifact,let´s see what the times bring.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted December 02, 2007 02:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
About book of revelation:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. 16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
That means...
That means you just quoted a line or two of which there is no proof whatsoever that it was written by God himself or some random monk. Therefor A) It's useless to quote and B) It means nothing.
Quote:
That means god dont reveals his plans to anybody,perhaps if the world would know it,maybe chaos would flood all,panic.Actually i´m studying and reading this interesting book,once you started read it you can discover lot of things,one thing that is awesome is when john see this vision about those future days,i got the conclusion about the number or "code" 666,could be perhaps a chip might be implanted in persons.Already was tested thought i´m not sure in which country,but something im sure,at least i wouldn´t never let the goverment obligue people to use that "chip" or artifact,let´s see what the times bring.
Aside from sheer speculation, what is the point you're trying to make?
I think people have a tendency of quoting from the bible too much and making those quotes pose as "facts" or "evidence" or "arguments".
It would be same as taking quotes from fairytales and screaming "BUT RIGHT HERE IT SAYS..."
|
|
roy-algriffin
Supreme Hero
Chocolate ice cream zealot
|
|
posted December 02, 2007 03:59 AM |
|
|
The bible is ancient and in some ways already proven accurate(or at least has plenty of backing) at some points. Discount it and call it fake as you like but i think even athiest historians would disagree that its all fake and every word it has is a fairy tale. Some of it is most likely true or had more meaning at the time then it does for us now.
____________
"Am i a demon? No im a priest of the light! THE BLOODY RED LIGHT"
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted December 02, 2007 04:44 AM |
|
|
Actually the bible is often historically inaccurate as was stated in the separate bible thread, though this is irrelevant because what gallow speaks of is the book of revelations which is apocalyptic literature so historical backing isn't really important..
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
gallow
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Avenger
|
|
posted December 02, 2007 01:36 PM |
|
|
|
Bible is not a fairy tale,this book is the most sold at the moment,it has not evil inside so respect at least that,unrespectfull people,post here is a nightmare,im really tired no matter if the post is not offensive,still its impossible to dont get quoted by someone or even the press come to attack it.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted December 02, 2007 01:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Bible is not a fairy tale,
prove.
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
Gallow
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Avenger
|
|
posted December 02, 2007 02:09 PM |
|
|
|
antipaladin: you should at least have some respect for your ancestors thought,what they did,the sacrifices they did,your own people,the old testament,the exodus from egypt of the hebrews...the 40 years in the desert..moses,they had to wait for him untill he came from the mountain but no,they started to workship for a golden caft,they invented... the Promised Land,all that is int he exodus.Would be like an american person says "washington was fake,the constitution of usa is crap we dont need it.." or something almost like that.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted December 02, 2007 02:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
it has not evil inside
Oh, oh, contraire.
Any of the people of Israel, or of the aliens who reside in Israel, who give any of their offspring to Molech shall be put to death; the people of the land shall stone them to death. I myself will set my face against them, and will cut them off from the people, because they have given of their offspring to Molech, defiling my sanctuary and profaning my holy name. And if the people of the land should ever close their eyes to them, when they give of their offspring to Molech, and do not put them to death, I myself will set my face against them and against their family, and will cut them off from among their people, them and all who follow them in prostituting themselves to Molech.
If any turn to mediums and wizards, prostituting themselves to them, I will set my face against them, and will cut them off from the people. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am the Lord your God. Keep my statutes, and observe them; I am the Lord; I sanctify you. All who curse father or mother shall be put to death; having cursed father or mother, their blood is upon them.
If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. [Leviticus, chapter 20]
When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out alone. But if the slave declares, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person’, then his master shall bring him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.
Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death. If it was not premeditated, but came about by an act of God, then I will appoint for you a place to which the killer may flee. But if someone wilfully attacks and kills another by treachery, you shall take the killer from my altar for execution.
Whoever strikes father or mother shall be put to death.
Whoever kidnaps a person, whether that person has been sold or is still held in possession, shall be put to death. Whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death.
When individuals quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or fist so that the injured party, though not dead, is confined to bed, but recovers and walks around outside with the help of a staff, then the assailant shall be free of liability, except to pay for the loss of time, and to arrange for full recovery.
When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property. [Exodus, chapter 21]
If this is to be followed, we have to kill half the people in the world.
It promotes the wholesale beating of slaves, and that slavery is OK.
I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. [1 Timothy, chapter 2]
This passage is disgusting to women; what about all the women doctors and teachers?
It blatantly promotes an overtly chauvinistic attitude typical of a religion written by men, and that every intelligent woman should be silenced?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 02, 2007 05:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If this is to be followed, we have to kill half the people in the world.
Well maybe we should
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted December 02, 2007 08:23 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 20:24, 02 Dec 2007.
|
Quote:
Bible is not a fairy tale,this book is the most sold at the moment,
A book being sold a hell lot says nothing about how much of it is true facts or not. Non-argument.
Quote:
it has not evil inside so respect at least that,
*points at TA's post*
Quote:
unrespectfull people,
At least some of us bother to respond on-topic about the things you claim. I remember your responces to mine being "Pure nonsense" "I won't even respond to this". So who's being unrespectfull?
Quote:
post here is a nightmare,im really tired no matter if the post is not offensive,still its impossible to dont get quoted by someone or even the press come to attack it.
You rather have people worship your posts as absolute truth because you are always right, and people disagreeing with you automaticly are mean evil people?
Quote:
antipaladin: you should at least have some respect for your ancestors thought,what they did,the sacrifices they did,your own people,the old testament,the exodus from egypt of the hebrews...the 40 years in the desert..moses,they had to wait for him untill he came from the mountain but no,they started to workship for a golden caft,they invented... the Promised Land,all that is int he exodus.
Again, what is your point? Again you're quoting fiction that says nothing. I'm not sure about you but I'm not too convinced about a book's credibility if it holds a story about the entire earth flooding, some old geezer saving all animal species, and further encourages hatred towards minorities (such as women and homosexuals) just because they are supposedly sins. Why should we respect that?
Quote:
Would be like an american person says "washington was fake,the constitution of usa is crap we dont need it.." or something almost like that.
Are you seriously comparing the bible to a constitution now?
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted December 02, 2007 09:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Would be like an american person says "washington was fake,the constitution of usa is crap we dont need it.." or something almost like that.
Are you seriously comparing the bible to a constitution now?
actually, the constitution is a load of rubbish, it has rules about how if an Englishman can step on the American shores, then they are technically allowed to kill them. I've been to the USA about four times, and i'm still hear.
but on the other hand, all constitutions are weird. in a little village on the welsh boarder in england, the english are able to kill a welshman who crosses a river, by law!
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 02, 2007 09:20 PM |
|
|
That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
