Atheism...the religion of...science?

[hero]

Although it may seem irrelevant, I want to say thanks for this thread, there are many quality points and mod comments that really put a lot of depth into the needs and thoughts of theist and atheist logic.


No point here but a thank you, as reading is doing more for me right now than writing.

Hello. Glad you enjoy the thread. Feel free to join in any time. I can see you are fairly new so...WELCOME. Technically I am still a freshman member too, but I feel like I've been here forever. Welcome to the family (Ignore the goofy symbols coming form me, I think their cheerful. Sometimes I realize it makes me look like I am making fun of people, but this is definately my favorite:jiggy: )

 

[linwood]

You are thinking too deep.

The ancient cry of religious thinking.

All I wont to know is whether or not you see true logic in it.

No, I do not see "true" logic in the statement ..

Great cities are brought down from the inside.

I cannot see "true" logic in the statement until I have a premise or two.

I ask for a premise....

That would depend on how the city was brought down.

You give one..

Consider that as logic for war.

This is still too vague to determine whether your original statement has value so I ask for another...

That would depend upon the reasons for the war.

and you say ..

You are thinking too deep.

How can I possibly decide a correct answer without the information I`ve asked for?

So until you narrow the possible premises I can only say ..
The statement " Great cities are brought down from the inside." is not "true".

You did not originally ask me if the statement was logical, you asked me if it was "true".
There is a huge difference between logic and truth as I`ve been trying to tell you for 2-3 threads.

Can you understand what it means, and why it is true (or why not).

This is the very difference between religious thinking and freethinking.
I am not capable of telling you whether or not this statement is "true" without knowing something more about the statement.

You however can probably answer the question without a problem and in doing so you will always run into dillemas for passing judgement on what you are ignorant of.

I cannot declare truth from ignorance, if I am ignorant of the particulars or premise I cannot answer to truth.

 

[herospirit]

Ceridwens logic was immaculate
It`s conclusion was wrong because her premise was false but the logic she used was perfect.
Where is TVOR when you need him?

If the premise is wrong or unfounded then it is not "true".
The logic may be correct but it is ultimately untrue.

Mmhmm. Somewhere what you seem to think is true, obviously contradicts itself. I would ask you to explain yourself, but I fail to see the point in more arguments that are protecting the debators pride rather than seeking what is true. The truth is, your mind is made up. And whether or not their is logic to prove God your skeptimistic pride will never admit it. This is not a debate. And I fail to see the point assuming I know you. Forgive me if I have crossed a line. But this is the only side of you I have had an opporitunity to observe. Surely you must see the hypocricy of your logic.

 

[linwood]

Mmhmm. Somewhere what you seem to think is true, obviously contradicts itself.

Please point out the contradiction.

This is not a debate.

Well, it is in the debate forum and since it`s inception this thread does read like a debate so logically...

But this is the only side of you I have had an opporitunity to observe. Surely you must see the hypocricy of your logic.

No, but I would appreciate it being shown to me.
I despise hypocrisy.

If you see a contradiction in my writing allow me the opportunity to better define or retract it.

 

[herospirit]

If the premise is wrong or unfounded then it is not "true".
The logic may be correct but it is ultimately untrue

Ceridwens logic was immaculate
It`s conclusion was wrong because her premise was false but the logic she used was perfect.

These are both quotes of yours. They directly contradict each other. Perhaps you were not trying to make a point, but just adding to a statement. If this is the case then I apologise and admit that I am wrong. Having a mood of divergence I interperuted the second quote as you disagreeing with me, or in some way justifying the 'logic'. You yourself said that the logic is pointless if the premise is false. Personally I disagree with that quote, but you seem to believe it, otherwise I do not think you would have posted it. If indeed you were simply making a comment I acknowledge faultiness of interperutation. However, it seems as thought these quotes of yours directly contradict each other.

 

[linwood]

These are both quotes of yours. They directly contradict each other.

I`m still not seeing it.

Please explain how these quotes are contradictory.

If the premise is wrong or unfounded then it is not "true".
The logic may be correct but it is ultimately untrue

Ceridwens logic was immaculate
It`s conclusion was wrong because her premise was false but the logic she used was perfect.

They seem to align perfectly to me but honestly maybe I`m missing it as logic is not a frequent study of mine.
They both state that when a premise is false the conclusion will be also.

You do know that logic can be structured correctly while the premises and thus the conclusion are "wrong"?

Example..


Premise 1; Weight and gravity cause matter to sink in water.
Premise 2; Both wood & rocks are matter
Premise 3; A one pound rock will sink when placed in water.
Conclusion; A one pound piece of wood will sink when placed in water.

This logical structure is correct yet because the first premise is wrong the conclusion is also wrong.

I honestly don`t see anything wrong with either my statements or Ceridwens logic.

Could somebody, anybody, point out a mistake if they see it?
I could be wrong.

edit: To fix the order of my premises.

 

[linwood]

These are both quotes of yours. They directly contradict each other. Perhaps you were not trying to make a point, but just adding to a statement. If this is the case then I apologise and admit that I am wrong.

No, I was attempting to make a point.

Having a mood of divergence I interperuted the second quote as you disagreeing with me, or in some way justifying the 'logic'.

The logic is "justified" but ultimately one of the premises is not, making the conclusion incorrect.

You yourself said that the logic is pointless if the premise is false. Personally I disagree with that quote, but you seem to believe it, otherwise I do not think you would have posted it.

Actually I would like to retract that statement as it is wrong.

My apologies.

The logic is not exactly "nothing" without a rational premise.
It has at least allowed the one studying the logic to discover where he/she went wrong and move on from there.
So in that sense it is not pointless at all as it is a great tool for discovering what is "right" or "wrong" about the hypothesis.

 

[Bishadi]

Hero --- OK …. Let’s work on a little theory which started as a hypothesis back when I was a puppy.

linwood …

I ask for a premise

yes sir!

Linwood This goes to the heart of my original statement that you cannot debate spirituality using logic as neither side can come to an agreement on premise.
In order to use logic to support spirituality you must always assume your premise therefore it never leads to "truth".
You must assume your premise because spirituality cannot be evidenced as a fact.

Do you know who Schrödinger is? Or have any heard of Feshbach resonance?



This is what you can debate/discuss spirituality with. /////



This is the unknown that is to be soon understood. EMR or Light is life! And within Quantum physics soon spirituality will never be a debate but a known as real.



All living things have resonance or life to it, this resonance is what allows living things to prepare catalyst to continue. The metabolic processes in biology have missed describing this resonance which affects the immediate neighborhood of chemical reactions. The slowing of a photon or resonant frequency does exist where a resonant frequency can occupy a molecular structure and yet be caused to move on maintaining its wave length, in recent test within rubidium. This is what life does upon the peptides of lipids/proteins/aminos.



The spirit is this resonance and the pinnacle of this resonance within life's highest known evolution is consciousness.



This is a stated theory to address the spiritual attribute of theology and this ideal can be recognized in most all theological disciplines once a person comprehends the properties of electromagnetic radiation. It is why the effects of one life can and do affect all others whether known or not. To understand quantum or relativistic physics describes this.



So basically if the research is to be done by any, I suggest understanding the alkalis and then diatomic molecules and see how all life forms are built up of some of the most reactive elements known.



From life’s origins, dejavu, all the way to spontaneous human combustion and spirituality, I pose use this to establish your premise to finally bring both camps together.

 

[mr.guy]

So basically if the research is to be done by any, I suggest understanding the alkalis and then diatomic molecules and see how all life forms are built up of some of the most reactive elements known

So you would consider study of inert elements completly useless? Actually, if you're only interested in diatomic molecules, you'd pretty much ignore all but 7 elements, right?

 

[Bishadi]

I was offering a setting that helped me at the age of 15 realize biology and origin processes are really pretty basic. To start at base elemental reactions makes the framework unfold pretty easy. Mix water and sodium, BAM! Mix water and Potassium, Bam! Mix diatomic oxygen and hydrogen, bam! Just basics but in biology the processes are just doing that making, Bam! And the molecules are setting that will hold a resonance that aligns (dipole), and prepares catalyst for a continuation otherwise thermodynamics leads the structure to rest.



This scope of recognizing the resonance is where current biological description misses life. Spirit..... to cross that bridge real quick.



Maybe a new thread on this?



Point me in the right direction and we can discuss it in more detail just be prepared to do a little homework. I am almost 40 now and since I was a puppy I have over defined the term autodidact. The set back of this is a short fall in communication so please be patient with me.

 

[herospirit]

If the premise is wrong or unfounded then it is not "true".
The logic may be correct but it is ultimately untrue.

Ceridwens logic was immaculate It`s conclusion was wrong because her premise was false but the logic she used was perfect.

linwood,

When you first replied about Ceridwens logic, correct me if I am mistaken, I thought that you were trying to reaffirm it. And it seemed to me as though you were doing such by saying that its premise was wrong but the logics "truth" was adequate. The statement of adequacy I can accept (Even though I disagree.), but the crossing of what you said was true and false got me. It seemed to me that in one place or another you lost sight of something. Seeing as how you have retracted the first quote, however, we can continue with what we were discussing beforehand.

I stated that logic is first priority in circumstances without evidense. It is too true that debates often come down to prove, and disprove. It is exceptionally ignorant though to do such when neither party has anything but theories to back up their statements. Theories are made up of many truths, links, reasons, ect... Yet often we speak of the "spiritual". Of which I will acknowledge little evidense...physically. I will agree with everything Ceridwen said, however, all I managed or attempted to prove is the indifference of his/her premise. It was not the same as mine, thus its logic was not tuned to the same statement, or perspective if you will. I very explicitly said where evidense is not present. He/She gave me an example where their is tremendous evidense to prove such, thus the premise was different and irrelevant to my logic.

 

[Ceridwen018]

I stated that logic is first priority in circumstances without evidense.

I completely agree with this statement. Where evidence cannot be found, we must employ logic.

He/She gave me an example where their is tremendous evidense to prove such, thus the premise was different and irrelevant to my logic.

My example was completely hypothetical--I am fully aware that wood does not sink because it has a lesser density than a rock, yada, yada, yada. The point of my hypothetical situation, however, was completely valid. One can formulate a theory through logic, but they cannot prove that theory through logic. Theories can only be proven with evidence and experimentation. Sometimes the logic behind a theory is correct, and thus that theory is eventually proven to be correct once evidence is found and experiments are run. Take Einstein's theory of relativity, for example. His theory was formulated fully on his own logic alone, and was not actually proven until years after his death. Most theories, however, are proven to be incorrect.

And its "She" by the by.

 

[linwood]

[/i]

When you first replied about Ceridwens logic, correct me if I am mistaken, I thought that you were trying to reaffirm it.

No correction needed, I do agree with Ceridwens logic.

And it seemed to me as though you were doing such by saying that its premise was wrong but the logics "truth" was adequate.

No.
I am stating that because the premise is wrong it`s "truth" is also wrong.
The logic however is perfect given the assumption that all premises are correct.

Seeing as how you have retracted the first quote, however, we can continue with what we were discussing beforehand.

I have not retracted this first quote.
I retracted my earlier statement that logic built upon a false premise is pointless.
I still do not see how the two quotes you`ve posted directly contradict each other.
They seem to be saying exactly the same thing.

I stated that logic is first priority in circumstances without evidense.

I agree.

It is too true that debates often come down to prove, and disprove. It is exceptionally ignorant though to do such when neither party has anything but theories to back up their statements.

Agreed, I`m glad this is not the case here.

I will agree with everything Ceridwen said, however, all I managed or attempted to prove is the indifference of his/her premise. It was not the same as mine, thus its logic was not tuned to the same statement, or perspective if you will.

I am of a mind to think that the purpose of logic is to get rid of perspective.
To strip a thing down until you have only what can be evidenced.
To assume a premise is to destroy the validity of the conclusion.

I very explicitly said where evidense is not present. He/She gave me an example where their is tremendous evidense to prove such, thus the premise was different and irrelevant to my logic.

You simply cannot invent your own premise in a logical construct and hope to have any universal validity for your conclusion.

Spirituality cannot be broken down logically unless all who examine the logic are willing to assume the same premises.

Some of us try to assume nothing.

 

[mr.guy]

You simply cannot invent your own premise in a logical construct and hope to have any universal validity for your conclusion.

Required reading for this forum, says I. Or do i have that exactly wrong...?

 

[linwood]

I completely agree with this statement. Where evidence cannot be found, we must employ logic.

Which leads to my ultimate point.
Once evidence is found the logic can be re-assed to determine if it ever held truth.

 

[Bishadi]

Linwood You simply cannot invent your own premise in a logical construct and hope to have any universal validity for your conclusion.

Linwood my previous posts offered a premise as to what spirituality is.



Invented, supported by tremendous evidence although not meeting your logic, yet!



What did Newton do with Gravity? Or calculus? He invented a universal premise that supported many conclusions.

 

[linwood]

What did Newton do with Gravity? Or calculus? He invented a universal premise that supported many conclusions.

Newtons premise was empirically evidenced, or did you forget the apple?



He invented no premise, he invented a method of understanding and evidencing a premise that had already existed whether you are speaking of gravity or calculus.

 

[Bishadi]

Gravity is the premise identified. The falling apple was the evidence or process, I agree. The premise was used to desribe the data.

Then again I am not the best with words and could be using the text incorrectly.

 

[linwood]

Gravity is the premise identified. The falling apple was the evidence or process. The premise was used to desribe the data.

The point is that gravity, while still not fully understood is empirically evidenced.

Spirituality is by no means evidenced, at least not in the form I am assuming you see it.

Then again I may be forgetting what this entire discussion was originally about considering it has strayed as far as any discussion can.

 

[Bishadi]

The question is are we having fun? Keep smiling!

People not understanding the quantum framework of life is something I have learned to live with for over 20 years and it has only been in the last 3 or 4 years that quantum biology has really been explored.

Bottom line is, as more description are defined, someone besides this closet case will get the picture. I don't need any acknowledgment. I only care about the "7" that are able to grow, selfish needs do not purpose any quality intent.