The illogical logic...

[minorwork]

Usually when I debate, I make sure that the person I talk with, understands my definition of the words I use (only when there is more than one common definition). as I see it, it is vital for a debater to have a clear understanding of the terms being used by the other debater in order to have a fuller understanding of the arguments presented.

For some reason, it always seems to me very hard to understand the exact definition of some words that theist who argue against me use.

When I ask for example what is moral, I have my very clear definition of what it is, and there is a common understanding what we mean by it, but to theists, it is more than a word describing a relative understanding of good acts and bad act, but rather some kind of an objective force or power, that is the absolute good.

It took me quite some time to understand that their logic works very different than the logic of skeptics and the likes.

So I try to understand what is the cause of the different logic mechanism? why is it that my logical assessment is so different than the logical assessment of theist people?

We should remember that dictionaries don't tell us what words mean, they tell us what people think words mean. This is why the words "literally" and "figuratively" mean the same thing.

Star Trek's universal translator might burn out trying to translate the terms used by Young Earth Creationists (YEC). DARMOK episode of Star Trek Next Generation comes to mind.

Lt. Commander Data: Their ability to abstract is highly unusual. They seem to communicate through narrative imagery, a reference to the individuals and places which appear in their mythohistorical accounts.

Counselor Deanna Troi: It's as if I were to say to you... "Juliet on her balcony".

Doctor Beverly Crusher: An image of romance.

Counselor Deanna Troi: Exactly. Imagery is everything to the Tamarians. It embodies their emotional states, their very thought processes. It's how they communicate, and it's how they think.

Commander William T. Riker: If we know how they think, shouldn't we be able to get something across to them?

Lt. Commander Data: No, sir. The situation is analogous to understanding the grammar of a language, but none of the vocabulary.

Doctor Beverly Crusher: If I didn't know who Juliet was or what she was doing on that balcony, the image alone wouldn't have any meaning.

Counselor Deanna Troi: That's correct. For instance, we know that Darmok was a great hero, a hunter, and that Tanagra was an island. But that's it. Without the details, there's no understanding.

Also, consider the hunter circling the tree to see the squirrel who keeps the trunk twixt himself and the hunter. Round and round they go. Does the hunter circle the squirrel? Both a YES and NO answer is correct in a particular descriptive paradigm. Using compass points; north of, west of, south of, east of, and north of the answer is yes, but using front, right, behind, left and front descriptions of the hunter's movement relating to the squirrel, the answer is NO. So what's the damage if two viewers are not on the same descriptive page? Considerable damage is possible and certain as shown in the next example.
On September 15, 1999, the NASA Deep Space network radioed a mid-course correction burn to the Mars Orbital Surveyor spacecraft, then approaching the Red Planet. A few days later, instead of skipping off the Martian atmosphere in an aerobraking maneuver as planned, the spacecraft plowed into the densest part of Mars' atmosphere and disintegrated. Later investigation revealed that the spacecraft required its burn instructions to be expressed in Metric units (newton-seconds), but because of a mixup, English units (pound-seconds) were transmitted, which resulted in the spacecraft's destruction. The total cost for the mission was US$655.2 million.

Yes, you are very much justified for noting the disparity in languages by the theists. Many have noted the problem:

“Lest you think that I am quibbling over minor points of language, I note that in my experience many of the misconceptions people harbor have their origins in imprecise language... Precise language is needed in science, not to please pedants but to avoid absorbing nonsense that will take years, if ever, to purge from our minds.” ~ Dr. Craig F. Gohren, from his “Clouds in a Glass of Beer: Simple experiments in atmospheric physics?”

“(language) becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.” ~ George Orwell

“The search for the MOT JUSTE is not a pedantic fad but a vital necessity. Words are our precision tools. Imprecision engenders ambiguity and hours are wasted in removing verbal misunderstandings before the argument of substance can begin.” ~ ANONYMOUS CIVIL SERVANT (from Roget’s Thesaurus Webpage)

“Many errors, of a truth, consist merely in the application of the wrong names of things.” ~ Spinoza

I think one major difference, is what skeptics and theists grasp as cause.

When I ask myself, what is the cause of something I do, it is split into 2 different things (for me),
The cause as: The goal I want to achieve by performing an action
and
The cause as: The events that led me to take that action

I'll try and provide an example:

I help and old man cross the street.

My goal will be to make sure the old man successfully crosses the road. I of course also want to provide an example to others that it is not a bad habit to help the older.

As for the events that lead me to help the old man cross the street, it is the fact that I wish that when I will be old, people will help me in a case of need. it is, of course, a bit deeper than that, but the bottom line is indeed that (it has got to do a lot, of course, with the way I was raised by my parents who taught me to respect and help people when I can).

Most theists that I speak with, will never use such a logic to explain why they help someone. It will usually be due to gods will, or something like that. (which is great, as long as it is causing you help others).

For me to understand morality, I've had to break it down a bit. Morality is to groups as self-interest is to the individual.

The more I debate, the more I try to clearly understand the logic behind the theist beliefs, and i really can't seem to understand it.

I would love if someone can raise to the challenge, and explain me the way the "theistic logic" works.

please use the starting point of explaining what is math to you? is it something invented, or discovered, by humans?

Thanks and cheers

Math invented or discovered? Gee whiz you don't want much. That's a helluva potential for a long debate itself there. Been reading some Mario Livio have ye?
I ask myself, Is math a science or not?

 

[Nous]

I never said it was scientific.

That's right. You didn't say your belief is "scientific". It isn't deduced from any scientific finding. That's my point.

 

[Worshipper]

Math invented or discovered? Gee whiz you don't want much. That's a helluva potential for a long debate itself there.

Absolutely! This question is far from simple. I've been puzzling over it for a while.

Some math seems discovered. Pi, for instance, seems really discovered to me. Other math — like the Cartesian plane, perhaps — feels a bit more invented to me.

Trying to think about the question from some place firmly within my theistic frame of reference doesn't help. Some of math seems like the discovery of deeply universal truths. Yet some of math seems like the narratives that we concoct to make reality seem more palatable to our cultural ethos.

Yeah, my theism leaves this question a Mystery.

 

[minorwork]

Absolutely! This question is far from simple. I've been puzzling over it for a while.

Some math seems discovered. Pi, for instance, seems really discovered to me. Other math — like the Cartesian plane, perhaps — feels a bit more invented to me.

Trying to think about the question from some place firmly within my theistic frame of reference doesn't help. Some of math seems like the discovery of deeply universal truths. Yet some of math seems like the narratives that we concoct to make reality seem more palatable to our cultural ethos.

Yeah, my theism leaves this question a Mystery.

On a flat, previously drawn circle, PI sure looks to be a valid relationship, but in the drawing of curves there seems a different type of a line, an arc, then the linear dimensions of the algorithm's variables (C = 2pi) suggest that in the kinematics of the relationship, is it possible that pi = 4?

Visual demonstration of Pi = 4. How far does the point travel in 'x' and how far in 'y'? Sum these and divide by the diameter and you get....?

demo

And a real live video experiment to show that pi=4.

 

[ChristineM]

That's right. You didn't say your belief is "scientific". It isn't deduced from any scientific finding. That's my point.

Ahh, another cherry picker. There seems to be a lot of you about on this forum.

Did i or did i not provide a link to over 100,000 scientific and academic papers that show your claim to be wrong?

And your point is what? Human experience is not valid because you dictate?

​

 

[ChristineM]

We should remember that dictionaries don't tell us what words mean, they tell us what people think words mean. This is why the words "literally" and "figuratively" mean the same thing.

Star Trek's universal translator might burn out trying to translate the terms used by Young Earth Creationists (YEC). DARMOK episode of Star Trek Next Generation comes to mind.

Lt. Commander Data: Their ability to abstract is highly unusual. They seem to communicate through narrative imagery, a reference to the individuals and places which appear in their mythohistorical accounts.

Counselor Deanna Troi: It's as if I were to say to you... "Juliet on her balcony".

Doctor Beverly Crusher: An image of romance.

Counselor Deanna Troi: Exactly. Imagery is everything to the Tamarians. It embodies their emotional states, their very thought processes. It's how they communicate, and it's how they think.

Commander William T. Riker: If we know how they think, shouldn't we be able to get something across to them?

Lt. Commander Data: No, sir. The situation is analogous to understanding the grammar of a language, but none of the vocabulary.

Doctor Beverly Crusher: If I didn't know who Juliet was or what she was doing on that balcony, the image alone wouldn't have any meaning.

Counselor Deanna Troi: That's correct. For instance, we know that Darmok was a great hero, a hunter, and that Tanagra was an island. But that's it. Without the details, there's no understanding.

Also, consider the hunter circling the tree to see the squirrel who keeps the trunk twixt himself and the hunter. Round and round they go. Does the hunter circle the squirrel? Both a YES and NO answer is correct in a particular descriptive paradigm. Using compass points; north of, west of, south of, east of, and north of the answer is yes, but using front, right, behind, left and front descriptions of the hunter's movement relating to the squirrel, the answer is NO. So what's the damage if two viewers are not on the same descriptive page? Considerable damage is possible and certain as shown in the next example.
On September 15, 1999, the NASA Deep Space network radioed a mid-course correction burn to the Mars Orbital Surveyor spacecraft, then approaching the Red Planet. A few days later, instead of skipping off the Martian atmosphere in an aerobraking maneuver as planned, the spacecraft plowed into the densest part of Mars' atmosphere and disintegrated. Later investigation revealed that the spacecraft required its burn instructions to be expressed in Metric units (newton-seconds), but because of a mixup, English units (pound-seconds) were transmitted, which resulted in the spacecraft's destruction. The total cost for the mission was US$655.2 million.

Yes, you are very much justified for noting the disparity in languages by the theists. Many have noted the problem:

“Lest you think that I am quibbling over minor points of language, I note that in my experience many of the misconceptions people harbor have their origins in imprecise language... Precise language is needed in science, not to please pedants but to avoid absorbing nonsense that will take years, if ever, to purge from our minds.” ~ Dr. Craig F. Gohren, from his “Clouds in a Glass of Beer: Simple experiments in atmospheric physics?”

“(language) becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.” ~ George Orwell

“The search for the MOT JUSTE is not a pedantic fad but a vital necessity. Words are our precision tools. Imprecision engenders ambiguity and hours are wasted in removing verbal misunderstandings before the argument of substance can begin.” ~ ANONYMOUS CIVIL SERVANT (from Roget’s Thesaurus Webpage)

“Many errors, of a truth, consist merely in the application of the wrong names of things.” ~ Spinoza

For me to understand morality, I've had to break it down a bit. Morality is to groups as self-interest is to the individual.

Math invented or discovered? Gee whiz you don't want much. That's a helluva potential for a long debate itself there. Been reading some Mario Livio have ye?
I ask myself, Is math a science or not?

Darmok was one of my favorite episodes of stng. Thanks for the memory.

 

[David1967]

explain me the way the "theistic logic" works.

Hello Segev. You bring a good question, but I think (to me at least) there is the question of 'what type of theist?'. For example, a Muslim theist , A Hindu theist and a Catholic theist etc. etc. may have differing opinions as to the cause and goal of doing good things. Personally, I do believe in God , yet I would help someone in need just because it is the right thing to do, not because I think God wants me to or that I may get some divine reward for doing so. Speaking only for myself here of course.

 

[ChristineM]

Hello Segev. You bring a good question, but I think (to me at least) there is the question of 'what type of theist?'. For example, a Muslim theist , A Hindu theist and a Catholic theist etc. etc. may have differing opinions as to the cause and goal of doing good things. Personally, I do believe in God , yet I would help someone in need just because it is the right thing to do, not because I think God wants me to or that I may get some divine reward for doing so. Speaking only for myself here of course.

Great point but I think it goes further than that, there are good, not so good and downright sick people in every faith. Most Muslims are good people, just want to get on with life and look after friends and family, some few aren't, the atrocity at Manchester on Monday is evidence of that. Most Christians are good people, again they want nothing more than to live a good life. Some are not, christian terrorists are doing their worst in Africa right now, and are, to a lesser extent, active in India, Europe and America.

My family and i have been hurt several times over the years in the name of christianity, i guess they consider themselves to be good Christians because of what they have done.

 

[David1967]

My family and i have been hurt several times over the years in the name of christianity, i guess they consider themselves to be good Christians because of what they have done.

I am very sorry to hear that. Hopefully that will not be repeated. IMO, no "good" Christian, or Muslim or Hindu or whatever, would want to cause harm to another.

 

[ChristineM]

I am very sorry to hear that. Hopefully that will not be repeated. IMO, no "good" Christian, or Muslim or Hindu or whatever, would want to cause harm to another.

Cheers

I certainly hope so too.

However it only goes to show there are good and bad, all consider then selves good.

 

[Nous]

Did i or did i not provide a link to over 100,000 scientific and academic papers that show your claim to be wrong?

REALLY????!!!! I did not see any such link to such a massive number of studies proving something I said to be wrong!!! Please provide it again. Did you read all of these 100,000 studies--are you sure they all tested my claim? Exactly what claim?

 

[David T]

why wouldn't they? they use the exact logic as i use to most things in life.
they just refer to it in different terms i think.
but when it comes to "beyond", they neglect that same logic. i think most of them are just unaware of it.

my logic used to work the same in the past, but as i learned more and more about the spiritual world, and in parallel learned about the physical world, i learned that the scientific method is objective unlike the entire spiritual world which is mostly subjective.

The scientific method cannot be literally "objective". Its subject subjective to nature. Nature is objective not subjective to anything especially "laws of physics". .

 

[ChristineM]

REALLY????!!!! I did not see any such link to such a massive number of studies proving something I said to be wrong!!! Please provide it again. Did you read all of these 100,000 studies--are you sure they all tested my claim? Exactly what claim?

I don't come on this forum to waste my time on people like you, my post is there for reference. Have fun educating yourself

 

[Segev Moran]

You guys definitely prove that anti-religious people are just as full of anti-scientific nonsense as the young-earth creationists.

How so?

 

[ChristineM]

The scientific method cannot be literally "objective". Its subject subjective to nature. Nature is objective not subjective to anything especially "laws of physics". .

?

 

[ChristineM]

How so?

He has no valid answer, he's just sniping at atheists.

 

[Segev Moran]

Hmm. Have to say I haven't seen someone define "skeptic" in quite this fashion before. Going with what is most probable doesn't sound like skepticism at all to me, it sounds like something else entirely (a utilitarian statistician, perhaps?).

We live in a probable universe

Okay... so kind of confused because of how you are defining "skeptic" based upon probability.

I am not defining skeptic based upon probability.
Skeptic is someone that will consider truth to something that explains our reality and is demonstrated.
Skeptic will also be questioning anything that is not proven yet in a way that is determined and mostly probable. like evolution.
Science is a probable world. there are only few things we can call absolute, but it is always about probability.

Why would someone who bases their beliefs on probability necessarily reject the "spiritual" (another word I'm not sure what we mean by) world?

Because the probability the spiritual world is directly affecting our physical world is very very low.
In fact, in all the thousands upon thousands of studies and experiments, never was an evidence presented that can suggest such world.
there is, however, always, a chance that there is a "spiritual realm" (and no, other dimensions are not considered spiritual)

How to you determine probabilities for these things?

Which things?

I seem to recall a rather wise thread around here once that pointed out the ridiculousness of talking about the "probability" of gods being rather nonsensical... ?

the question of probability of a god is irrelevant (and cannot be measured).
it will be like asking what are the chances rolling 1 on a dice with unknown number of options.

the probability of an active god that changes the laws of physics as it sees fit, is very low.
how so?
well, we can take the number of phenomena that were ever considered a literal act of god in the entire human history.
Lets assume they represent a 100% of events that we know of.
based on that, the probability there is a god stands on close to nothing (there are probably a few cases we can't "debunk" yet )

there are of course many more examples that present a similar outcome.

I think the point still stands. I think too much is being attributed to someone being a theist and how that impacts how they approach the world.

Please do not mix it up with deist.
I have yet to meet a theist, that doesn't use god as a way of "excusing" some of his behavior (for better or worse).
the fact that it is not really a god, is something else. and that is exactly what i cant understand.

"Theist" is a very superficial and uninformative label as it tells us nothing about that person's

theology and much less about how they approach mythology and the world in general.

yet the fact is that most theists i talk with, demonstrate what i posted.
theists, approach mythology as reality. if not, they are not really theists.

With how you are defining theist?

Someone who believes god(or some other supernatural mono entity) is real.

I suppose not.

Doesn't stop me from being one, though, and finding this notion of "theist logic" untenable.
[/QUOTE]
I didn't say it is. I said i cant understand this logic.

It seems to me what you are noticing has nothing to do with theism and everything to do with mythic/literary/poetic/artful thinking. Which humans are capable of regardless of whether or not they identify as (or are labeled by outsiders as) theist or atheist.

Ok. for some reason you think i said ONLY theists have this "other" logic. that's not what i said.
I said that most theists i talk with, have this logic.

 

[Ponder This]

When I was being taught logic, I was given examples similar to:
If it is raining, then Sally takes her Umbrella with her.
It is raining.
Therefore, Sally takes her Umbrella with her.

The problem with logic is that it doesn't really apply like this to the real world.
In the real world, you can't make a deduction like this because you cannot know with absolute certainty that:
If it is raining, then Sally takes her Umbrella with her.

If you say Sally is irrational because it is raining and she doesn't take her Umbrella with her, it isn't because Sally is being illogical. It's because you made an assumption that was faulty to begin with. We can all agree who Sally is and all agree what an Umbrella is and all agree what raining is, but sometimes logic does not apply because we lack absolute certainty to make statements such as:
If it is raining, then Sally takes her Umbrella with her.

So you have a nice little definition for morality and absolute certainty in it... and someone comes along and says: hold on, it's not that simple. It may be raining, but Sally didn't take her Umbrella with her.

 

[Ponder This]

We live in a probable universe

I am not defining skeptic based upon probability.
Skeptic is someone that will consider truth to something that explains our reality and is demonstrated.
Skeptic will also be questioning anything that is not proven yet in a way that is determined and mostly probable. like evolution.
Science is a probable world. there are only few things we can call absolute, but it is always about probability.

Because the probability the spiritual world is directly affecting our physical world is very very low.
In fact, in all the thousands upon thousands of studies and experiments, never was an evidence presented that can suggest such world.
there is, however, always, a chance that there is a "spiritual realm" (and no, other dimensions are not considered spiritual)

Which things?

the question of probability of a god is irrelevant (and cannot be measured).
it will be like asking what are the chances rolling 1 on a dice with unknown number of options.

the probability of an active god that changes the laws of physics as it sees fit, is very low.
how so?
well, we can take the number of phenomena that were ever considered a literal act of god in the entire human history.
Lets assume they represent a 100% of events that we know of.
based on that, the probability there is a god stands on close to nothing (there are probably a few cases we can't "debunk" yet )

there are of course many more examples that present a similar outcome.

Please do not mix it up with deist.
I have yet to meet a theist, that doesn't use god as a way of "excusing" some of his behavior (for better or worse).
the fact that it is not really a god, is something else. and that is exactly what i cant understand.
yet the fact is that most theists i talk with, demonstrate what i posted.
theists, approach mythology as reality. if not, they are not really theists.

Someone who believes god(or some other supernatural mono entity) is real.

Doesn't stop me from being one, though, and finding this notion of "theist logic" untenable.

I didn't say it is. I said i cant understand this logic.


Ok. for some reason you think i said ONLY theists have this "other" logic. that's not what i said.
I said that most theists i talk with, have this logic.

[/QUOTE]

I can't resist not replying to this with a little mind bender:

There are an infinite number of rational numbers between 0 and 1.
.2223 is one such rational number.
So if you could select a number at random between 0 and 1, the probability that that number happens to be .2223 is approximately 1 out of infinity (0% chance).
And yet .2223 definitely exists!
So mathematically speaking, a 0% chance of something occurring, does not mean it cannot occur!
By a similar argument, 100% of the events we know of might not actually include all of the events we know of!
Such is the nature of probability.

End Mind Bender

 

[Segev Moran]

Hello Segev. You bring a good question, but I think (to me at least) there is the question of 'what type of theist?'. For example, a Muslim theist , A Hindu theist and a Catholic theist etc. etc. may have differing opinions as to the cause and goal of doing good things. Personally, I do believe in God , yet I would help someone in need just because it is the right thing to do, not because I think God wants me to or that I may get some divine reward for doing so. Speaking only for myself here of course.

How do you decide if it is a right or wrong thing to do?