Question about logic

Unveiled Artist · Jan 7, 2021

Ponder This said:
Let me see if I understand correctly.
1. If an action leads to a benefit, then it is logical to take that action.
2. Belief in God leads to a benefit (happiness, afterlife, etc). Therefore, it is logical to believe.

Logic cannot tell you the truth of presuppositions, it can only reveal to you what sorts of conclusions follow logically from a given set of presuppositions.

It's more it is logical (it makes sense) why children believe in santa because maybe their parents told them so or they saw it on television. They came to a conclusion, based on their reasoning limited or otherwise, that santa is actually a real person. While ridiculous it may seem (the logic may be absurd) but it still make sense how the child got to that conclusion.

Same with god.

Can you rephrase the last sentence? I looked up presuppositions but never used that word before.

Unveiled Artist · Jan 7, 2021

Mestemia said:
happy does not equate logical.
and that is exactly what it appears you are "arguing" here.

But for clarification purposes, please present the three step breakdown for both of your examples above.
You know:

belief in santa claus makes kids happy
santa claus gives kids gifts that makes them happy
therefore santa claus exists

Oh.

1. Child believes santa is real
2. because his parents told him so and he saw it on television
3. Therefore it makes sense or it's logical that he believes santa is real
4. Based on the reasons above.

It's logical or makes sense why the child believes santa is real, because his parents told him so. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant. How the child came to the conclusion makes sense.

Mestemia said:
not all reasoning is logical.

The reasoning is logical no matter how ridiculous one may take it.

A person may believe he can fly because he saw it on television. His belief in flying makes sense (it's logical) because it's based on what he saw rather than something made up out of the blue. While of course he can't fly, that doesn't mean how he came to that conclusion doesn't have reason in itself.

Mestemia said:
please see the example I presented above.
It is only one way what you presented can be tabled.

I think the one I gave above is an example?

Mestemia said:
I agree.
However, I also understand that using logic does not make it true either.

True, but that isn't part of the equation. It just makes sense how the conclusion was made whether it's true or not, silly or not, is irrelevant.

Mestemia said:
there are many types of reasoning besides logical.

seems to me that emotional reasoning is the most common

Yes. A lot of religious experiences and views of god are emotional reasoning. Which is logical or it makes sense because when you experience, say, a death of a loved one it may psychologically trigger one to search for god to sooth one's sadness. Whether it is true or not is besides the point. But it is logical the way the emotional reasoning plays out in part of a person's belief whether the child being happy cause of santa or a person being comforted in love because of god.

stvdv · Jan 7, 2021

Unveiled Artist said:
How do you make sense of god (even know there is such a thing) if the conclusions you drew for his existence and interaction with you isn't logical?

Going by the OP, I would assume that because even to mention god exists that there is a sound reasoning why you drew that conclusion, no?

Human is much more than logic alone. We have a physical body, mental body, emotional body, astral body, spiritual body
Indian Scriptures give plenty of information about the lesser known bodies, for those who really want to know

Unveiled Artist · Jan 7, 2021

stvdv said:
Human is much more than logic alone. We have a physical body, mental body, emotional body, astral body, spiritual body
Indian Scriptures give plenty of information about the lesser known bodies, for those who really want to know

Yes. That makes sense (I don't know what astral body is).... though that didn't quite answer.

If god is beyond logic, how did you come to a sound conclusion it exists and what it is to even describe how it interacts, what it does, or the nature of it insofar to talk about it?

Unveiled Artist · Jan 7, 2021

ADigitalArtist said:
Reasoning is a system for coming from a premise to a conclusion. Sound reasoning is when the system works consistently and one conclusion follows smoothly from the premise.

For example:
"A=B"
"Why?"
"Because A+A=C and B+B=C so, in conclusion, A=B"
The conclusion follows a sound line of reasoning.

But!

"A=B"
"Why?"
"Because I said so and I am in charge."
That's still a reason, but not a sound reason.

I have no clue what this is above... but if I said A and B is C, even though I have no clue what that means, it still is logical in the format it is written. ABC are in the correct order. "And" denotes addition (i.e.). and C is the sum of A and B. So, it makes sense even though we don't know what the variables are, why it's used, and for what form of mathematics do this formula applies.

Vinayaka · Jan 7, 2021

Unveiled Artist said:
I usually ask clarification questions... so if you don't mind explaining more, why naturally and not logically?

Do you believe there is any logic (or sound reasoning) to believe (or the term appropriate) in what you do? In other words, how do you draw your conclusions if they are not logically sound (or are they-at least to you?)?

Personally, I don't go there. I'm not driven by logic, religiously. My entire faith would be rather illogical, on those standards. Sound reasoning seems a better phrase. On the practical side, I'm very logical. For example, I go to the large grocery store I go to, during Covid, during the lowest possible crowd time. I read 'reliability' reviews when buying a new car.

stvdv · Jan 7, 2021

Unveiled Artist said:
If god beyond logic, how did you come to a sound conclusion it exists and what it is to even describe how it interacts, what it does, or the nature of it insofar to talk about it?

IF Scientific Masters declare material facts we believe them IF we trust them (even IF we can't calculate and prove it ourselves)
IF Spiritual Masters declare spiritual facts we believe them IF we trust them

But in both cases we only can KNOW if we study ourselves.
IF a professor tells us to study a book AND we don't study we never get our degree
Hence, we can never claim "I know". We stay stuck in the "I believe" phase

I met a few Spiritual Masters whom I trust, hence I started practising what my Master advises
And like in normal schools gradual knowledge increases, as well as experiences
So far, in my experience my Master have been right about these things
Hence I come to a sound conclusion it exists

George-ananda · Jan 7, 2021

I thin you are confusing two things. 'It is logical to want to believe' and 'It is logical to believe'.

As an adult I personally would want to follow what is logical to believe instead of what is most comfortable to believe. Others might choose comfort and not want to address all the questions.

Unveiled Artist · Jan 7, 2021

Vinayaka said:
Personally, I don't go there. I'm not driven by logic, religiously. My entire faith would be rather illogical, on those standards. Sound reasoning seems a better phrase. On the practical side, I'm very logical. For example, I go to the large grocery store I go to, during Covid, during the lowest possible crowd time. I read 'reliability' reviews when buying a new car.

Hmm. I see logic a bit differently. In the OP, believing santa exist isn't quite logical "if" in a scientific light, I guess one can say. But I do find it logical or sound because of the child's age and what they have been told.

Religiously, I'd say one's personal experiences would justify their belief being logical to them. Something they believe not because of science as a justification of reasoning but their experiences as a justification of reasoning. It's logical from one's experiences rather than in mathematical view.

I see sound reasoning and logical the same. Sometimes I think logic, science, religion, and spirituality tend to be dirty words. Is it the connotation behind it?

Unveiled Artist · Jan 7, 2021

George-ananda said:
I thin you are confusing two things. 'It is logical to want to believe' and 'It is logical to believe'.

As an adult I personally would want to follow what is logical to believe instead of what is most comfortable to believe. Others might choose comfort and not want to address all the questions.

Which one of those would go over drawing logical conclusions for a said belief(s)?

There are some things I believe in and I choose to say I know they are true based on my personal experiences and other things of that nature. So, it is logical to me and my whole worldview revolves around it just as everything else. Whether seen or unseen, felt or not felt, whatever the case may be it's all part of how I see and "make sense" of the world. If spirituality can't be separated from one's lifestyle and by definition defines one's self, wouldn't it make sense that the conclusions one gets to that point and the "blocks" that make it up have to make some sort of sense?

Can you believe something is true but find no logical reasons behind that conclusion-people just practice without it being their life? just because?

Unveiled Artist · Jan 7, 2021

stvdv said:
IF Scientific Masters declare material facts we believe them IF we trust them (even IF we can't calculate and prove it ourselves)
IF Spiritual Masters declare spiritual facts we believe them IF we trust them

But in both cases we only can KNOW if we study ourselves.
IF a professor tells us to study a book AND we don't study we never get our degree
Hence, we can never claim "I know". We stay stuck in the "I believe" phase

I met a few Spiritual Masters whom I trust, hence I started practising what my Master advises
And like in normal schools gradual knowledge increases, as well as experiences
So far, in my experience my Master have been right about these things
Hence I come to a sound conclusion it exists

That sounds like good logical reasoning of why and how you came to your conclusion. Why would one divorce logic from how and what they believe and choose to practice?

Doesn't religion (in context) make up one's worldview?

loverofhumanity · Jan 7, 2021

Unveiled Artist said:
Simple question about god and all of that jazz.

If you have a child who believes in santa claus, it's fine. Your child is happy. It's logical that he would believe in santa because as a child he looks forward to getting toys and gifts etc. So he waits for santa to give it to him. While he doesn't know santa is actually his parents, the reasoning behind his thinking santa is real is logical regardless.

Likewise, for sake of argument, with god. People who believe in god are happy. It's logical one would believe in god because in christianity, they look forward to the afterlife, god's love, and so forth. So waiting for god (or jesus) to arrives is fine. The reasoning behind the believer believing in gods is logical regardless how ridiculous one may think it is both in the case of santa and of god.

In these respects, why wouldn't we say the afterlife, god, and so forth are logical (there is reasoning behind it) regardless the absurdity one may think it is?

I also noticed in reading the logic afterlife thread and remembering others even some believers don't consider their belief in god logical. Going by the above, why not?

To derive logic doesn't mean you have to use science. It just means you're using whatever it means that makes sense to you to justify why you believe what you do "and" how it makes sense to the reality you live in. (In addition. It's hard to defend one's belief in god if it doesn't logically make up one's view of reality and with justification behind such reasoning).

I personally believe that the very worst thing a parent can teach a child is to lie. Truthfulness is so important. Consider just how evil lying is that it can be used to cover up things like murder and oppression. Not something to teach our next generation.

Now back to our ‘innocent’ Santa. The parents lie incessantly, the media lie to the child for years and years about Santa. All this because the child receives gifts and businesses flourish, but at the expense of honesty and truthfulness.

Now when that child grows up and realised it was just a ‘harmless lie’ and is told about a God that created us, then he, by association can very easily logically be led to believe there is no God also, although contrary to Santa, every atom in existence proclaims the existence of its creator.

Let’s take it a bit further. So what one may say. Our child doesn’t believe in God. But nobody knows God directly. What we associate with God are Figures like Jesus, Moses, Krishna and Their teachings. Unfortunately many throw the baby out with the bath water. That is, not only belief in God, but His wise counsels as well. We ditched God and virtues and replaced it with all sorts of lies, fallacies and fancies which we considered ‘harmless’ but which have contributed to the dysfunction of society.

So while it is acknowledge by all that Santa is a myth, this has been a cause of many irrationally and illogically adducing from this fallacy that God is also mythical.

However, Great Figures like Buddha, Krishna, Moses, Christ, Muhammad and Baha’u’llah, did exist, unlike Santa. And They have spoken about a Higher Being or Reality.

When we examine the lives of These Educators dispassionately, I believe that we will find that, unlike our parents lying to us about Santa, They have been completely truthful and honest with us about the existence of God.

alypius · Jan 7, 2021

Unveiled Artist said:
In these respects, why wouldn't we say the afterlife, god, and so forth are logical (there is reasoning behind it) regardless the absurdity one may think it is?

Is there a difference between whether a claim like the afterlife is logical to a believer and whether the claim is objectively true?

Bird123 · Jan 7, 2021

Unveiled Artist said:
Simple question about god and all of that jazz.

If you have a child who believes in santa claus, it's fine. Your child is happy. It's logical that he would believe in santa because as a child he looks forward to getting toys and gifts etc. So he waits for santa to give it to him. While he doesn't know santa is actually his parents, the reasoning behind his thinking santa is real is logical regardless.

Likewise, for sake of argument, with god. People who believe in god are happy. It's logical one would believe in god because in christianity, they look forward to the afterlife, god's love, and so forth. So waiting for god (or jesus) to arrives is fine. The reasoning behind the believer believing in gods is logical regardless how ridiculous one may think it is both in the case of santa and of god.

In these respects, why wouldn't we say the afterlife, god, and so forth are logical (there is reasoning behind it) regardless the absurdity one may think it is?

I also noticed in reading the logic afterlife thread and remembering others even some believers don't consider their belief in god logical. Going by the above, why not?

To derive logic doesn't mean you have to use science. It just means you're using whatever it means that makes sense to you to justify why you believe what you do "and" how it makes sense to the reality you live in. (In addition. It's hard to defend one's belief in god if it doesn't logically make up one's view of reality and with justification behind such reasoning).

Should the goal really be whatever story makes one feel Good? Whatever happened to seeking Knowledge, Truth, and Wisdom?

Our choices define who we are, what we know, and what we need to learn. Should we define ourselves as feeling good regardless of the cost? That will never be me. What about honesty with ourselves and others? Should this really take a backseat to a dreamworld?

I remember when I first realized Santa wasn't real. Every store had a different guy as Santa. That can't be right. I confronted my parents. I let them have it. How could you lie to me? Why are you doing all this??

I must say their faces were a bit red. I was young and showed no mercy. Perhaps, the best thing is to never bring Santa up. When they ask from hearing it from friends, tell them when you find out, let me know. Start the challenge to Discover at an early age rather than totally relying on answers from others.

Beliefs are important for different reasons than you say. If beliefs did not exist, we would lock up just like my old computer when all the facts were not known. Beliefs are not the problem. Valuing beliefs over the Discovery of the Facts, leads one away from truth into that dream world.

In reality, truth will not always be an agreeable thing. On the other hand, truth and true reality will always end up better after all the learning and Discovering is done.

You say it's ok for people to believe in God. You say it almost with the assumption God does not exist. Are you too creating a dream world that feels good to you as well?

You speak of Logic. If God exists, then God can be found. The existence of God can only be a fact or truth to those who have actually Discovered God. Everyone else lives on the Beliefs of their choosing.

Those who are satisfied with beliefs over Discovering the Truth are really in the same boat. Whatever makes you happy. Is this really the best way? Of course not!!

Atheists and theists really need each other. The interaction between the two point to the fact that being satisfied with mere beliefs will never be the answer. The different views bring all kinds of lessons to learn. There is Genius behind it all!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

paarsurrey · Jan 7, 2021

Vinayaka said:
definition of logic ... reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

I , understand, simply being reason oriented or solution oriented is required of a humble human, not everybody in the world is equipped with "strict principles of validity"* not even those who are busy with Science/Scientific Method. "Logic" is a tool of Philosophy often used by the Philosophers or sometimes or often by professional debaters in the forums to win from others to rejoice their win for vanity, hardly to benefit the ordinary/normal men in the street. Right friends, please?

Regards
_____________
*the formal logic or the abstract study of propositions, statements, or assertively used sentences.

Unveiled Artist · Jan 7, 2021

alypius said:
Is there a difference between whether a claim like the afterlife is logical to a believer and whether the claim is objectively true?

I think there's a difference. In the Santa scenario it is logical how the child concluded santa exist but it isn't objectively true despite the reasoning. Why would a believer base his or her life on something that is not reasoning sound?

Then it makes me wonder why believers of any religion wouldn't say their beliefs are objectively true if their beliefs make up the only reality or worldview in which they base their lives.

Why would someone say belief in god doesn't make sense when the justifications are logically sound regardless if it is true and whether or not the other finds the justifications and god ridiculous or not.

Unveiled Artist · Jan 7, 2021

Bird123 said:
Should the goal really be whatever story makes one feel Good? Whatever happened to seeking Knowledge, Truth, and Wisdom?

Our choices define who we are, what we know, and what we need to learn. Should we define ourselves as feeling good regardless of the cost? That will never be me. What about honesty with ourselves and others? Should this really take a backseat to a dreamworld?

I remember when I first realized Santa wasn't real. Every store had a different guy as Santa. That can't be right. I confronted my parents. I let them have it. How could you lie to me? Why are you doing all this??

I must say their faces were a bit red. I was young and showed no mercy. Perhaps, the best thing is to never bring Santa up. When they ask from hearing it from friends, tell them when you find out, let me know. Start the challenge to Discover at an early age rather than totally relying on answers from others.

Beliefs are important for different reasons than you say. If beliefs did not exist, we would lock up just like my old computer when all the facts were not known. Beliefs are not the problem. Valuing beliefs over the Discovery of the Facts, leads one away from truth into that dream world.

In reality, truth will not always be an agreeable thing. On the other hand, truth and true reality will always end up better after all the learning and Discovering is done.

You say it's ok for people to believe in God. You say it almost with the assumption God does not exist. Are you too creating a dream world that feels good to you as well?

You speak of Logic. If God exists, then God can be found. The existence of God can only be a fact or truth to those who have actually Discovered God. Everyone else lives on the Beliefs of their choosing.

Those who are satisfied with beliefs over Discovering the Truth are really in the same boat. Whatever makes you happy. Is this really the best way? Of course not!!

Atheists and theists really need each other. The interaction between the two point to the fact that being satisfied with mere beliefs will never be the answer. The different views bring all kinds of lessons to learn. There is Genius behind it all!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

I don't agree with a lot of what you said. It makes me wonder specifically, though. How a child came to the conclusion there is a santa would be just as logical (but different criteria to come to that conclusion) as one who believes in god? Regardless how silly or true or false it may be to many people, they both make sense, no?

As in god exist god can be found and all of that, though off topic god's existence depends on the person. God isn't a universal being that one can "find" if he or she looked hard enough. Not sure of atheist and theist needing each other. As long as a believer sees the atheist has something missing either to himself or telling an atheist directly, it keeps to believer at a distance. Believers (since not all theists are like christians, muslims, etc) need to in their own minds and to others have some insight into not believing god's existence without "strings attached." Instead, maybe it's just not ideal for believers to be around atheists the evangalists goal is to convert and tolerate those who don't believe what they do.

On that note, it's not very clear. I think many people just don't get what they are doing to others but at least we're not killing people over it. Even though I can think of other things near just as worse.

stvdv · Jan 7, 2021

Unveiled Artist said:
That sounds like good logical reasoning of why and how you came to your conclusion. Why would one divorce logic from how and what they believe and choose to practice?

No need to divorce logic from how and what we believe and choose to practise
Logic is indeed useful to determine which spiritual path to choose
And logic is useful to make decisions and use common sense
In this way we purify ourselves if we choose the "satwic=pure" lifestyle
Once we purify our mind (pure thoughts) and body(pure food), automatically insights increase, and wisdom too
The more pure we become the more we will understand and know
But also the more we will realize that there is even much more that we do not know
(And for the above there is no need to believe in God when you start; while purifying yourself the Divine will slowly reveal more and more)

In India they say "God is smaller than the smallest and larger than the largest" ... not really logical. Hence God can't be understood by logic.

What can be understood by logic is the following. We humans are tiny. The Universe is huge. So there is human truth and there is planetarian truth and universal truth and divine truth. We as normal humans will never be able to know everything about the universe, because we don't have omniscience nor omnipresence at our disposal. And God is beyond the Universe, hence we will never be able to understand God in total IMO.

e.g.: To become more peaceful we can reduce our desires and our thoughts
Logic is helpful too to make decisions and use common sense
Scientific knowledge can be understood by the mind (logic and reasoning and understanding, whereas spiritual wisdom is felt deep within, intuition)
Spiritual Wisdom can not be understood by the mind (Indians in America called it sixth sense, in India its called "open your third eye", eye of wisdom)

Unveiled Artist said:
Doesn't religion (in context) make up one's worldview?

Science is useful for what you do it in life
Spiritual is useful for how you do it in life

And indeed my worldview changed a lot, since I started my spiritual quest

These were a few of my thoughts that came up, reading your thread/questions.

Heyo · Jan 8, 2021

Unveiled Artist said:
Simple question about god and all of that jazz.

If you have a child who believes in santa claus, it's fine. Your child is happy. It's logical that he would believe in santa because as a child he looks forward to getting toys and gifts etc. So he waits for santa to give it to him. While he doesn't know santa is actually his parents, the reasoning behind his thinking santa is real is logical regardless.

Likewise, for sake of argument, with god. People who believe in god are happy. It's logical one would believe in god because in christianity, they look forward to the afterlife, god's love, and so forth. So waiting for god (or jesus) to arrives is fine. The reasoning behind the believer believing in gods is logical regardless how ridiculous one may think it is both in the case of santa and of god.

In these respects, why wouldn't we say the afterlife, god, and so forth are logical (there is reasoning behind it) regardless the absurdity one may think it is?

I also noticed in reading the logic afterlife thread and remembering others even some believers don't consider their belief in god logical. Going by the above, why not?

To derive logic doesn't mean you have to use science. It just means you're using whatever it means that makes sense to you to justify why you believe what you do "and" how it makes sense to the reality you live in. (In addition. It's hard to defend one's belief in god if it doesn't logically make up one's view of reality and with justification behind such reasoning).

There is a difference between reason and logic. It may be reasonable for a child to believe in Santa based on her informations but there is no logic involved. Logic is much more strict than simple reason.

blü 2 · Jan 8, 2021

Unveiled Artist said:
Simple question about god and all of that jazz.

If you have a child who believes in santa claus, it's fine. Your child is happy. It's logical that he would believe in santa because as a child he looks forward to getting toys and gifts etc. So he waits for santa to give it to him. While he doesn't know santa is actually his parents, the reasoning behind his thinking santa is real is logical regardless.

Likewise, for sake of argument, with god. People who believe in god are happy. It's logical one would believe in god because in christianity, they look forward to the afterlife, god's love, and so forth. So waiting for god (or jesus) to arrives is fine. The reasoning behind the believer believing in gods is logical regardless how ridiculous one may think it is both in the case of santa and of god.

In these respects, why wouldn't we say the afterlife, god, and so forth are logical (there is reasoning behind it) regardless the absurdity one may think it is?

I also noticed in reading the logic afterlife thread and remembering others even some believers don't consider their belief in god logical. Going by the above, why not?

To derive logic doesn't mean you have to use science. It just means you're using whatever it means that makes sense to you to justify why you believe what you do "and" how it makes sense to the reality you live in. (In addition. It's hard to defend one's belief in god if it doesn't logically make up one's view of reality and with justification behind such reasoning).

Whether it's logical or not depends on the task in hand, no?

If belief makes someone happier ─ or gives them a feeling of belonging, or of living in a orderly world, or whatever ─ AND that's the primary requirement, then fine, go for it.

But if that requirement is secondary to, for example, the desire to understand reality and make accurate statements about it ─ no bad thing, in my book ─ then claims that are made, including claims of religion. are all subject to interrogation to determine whether they're accurate statements about reality, or coherent propositions within logical frameworks (as with maths, and as with abstractions generally). Right back to the start of records, but particularly since the 1950s, this has not been an arena in which religions have been particularly successful at persuading.

Of course, most embracings of religion are not rational, and not all rejections of religions are rational, but that's somewhat outside the OP's question.

Question about logic

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

devotee

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

We are all the leaves of one tree

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV

Veteran Member

Veteran Member