Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
Of course it is not literal as science is not an entity.
yet the scientific method doesn't rely on opinions. it rely on nature. thus, it is indeed an objective way of looking at things (as much as possible)
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The illogical logic...
- Thread starter Segev Moran
- Start date
yet the scientific method doesn't rely on opinions. it rely on nature. thus, it is indeed an objective way of looking at things (as much as possible)
Don't know of David1967's response but for me, if I can sleep without the deed keeping me up then it was or will be a good deed. Selfish, sure, but that's how I do it.
Good question. In your example of helping an elderly person safety across the street, to me its not so much a decision as it is (hope this is the right word) instinct.
Is lying immoral? Perhaps that's the reason you're not "thriving" well on this thread
Your claim about flowers following moral precepts, and Christine's claim about moral rules enabling humans (but maybe not other animals) to "thrive" and "stay together," are on par with the idea of Adam and Eve riding the dinosaurs.
If mathematics were a human invention, we wouldn't have unsolved problems in mathematics--of which there are many, such as the Hodge conjecture--we would just invent the answer. But the answers have to be discovered. Therefore, mathematical realism.
But you do raise an important issue about some mathematics "feeling" invented. Perhaps some currently accepted mathematics is invented. That doesn't actually infringe on mathematical realism, just like false theories in, say, physics, do not imply that the whole of physics is a human fabrication.
I had empathy for a guy on the side of the road hitching in the rain as I drove home. He noticed I had a miner's bucket and asked if I worked the mine and if I knew his stepdad. I did and did. He ended up staying with me about 6 weeks. Great butler or "buttboy" as the miners called him. He helped me a lot when I was bleeding internally and didn't trust myself to drive. Lent him my car on several occasions, he cleaned my house and my ex's house. Saved me from getting substandard siding put on, he caught 'em and they had to remove the house of the house they'd done and put up the siding I'd contracted for. Lent him the car on a Friday to see his mom about 70 miles away and told him I needed it at 10 next day. 4 am the phone is ringing louder than usual and I get up and it's a state police dispatcher gal asking if I had such and such car. yep. Did I know DY, yep. Did I know that he'd set a bomb at Casey's parking lot and called 911? Nope, I think you got the wrong guy. She described my car and said he'd been chased by police, 300 houses evacuated for a 2 oz vanilla bottle with Estes model rocket engine fuel in it, he'd backed into a cop car and took off again. *sigh* They convinced me this guy had gone off his nut. Took three days to get my car back, taillight busted, the insurance company paid for the cop car but dropped me. No sense of humor I guess. Missed three days of work, had state police detective going thru my house and questioning me.
Odd thing though even after going back to work and stepping in the lamp room full of guys who immediately stopped talking, one stood up and pointed at me saying, "The Unibomber, the Unibomber. I did right then and DY was two years afore he went to trial. Drew a 6-year sentence worked at a fed pen for Unicor making cruise missile wiring harnesses, is out now and I haven't seen or heard of him.
I did right then. Feel today that I did. But I saw my sister hitching on the side of a road, car broke down and I didn't pick her up. Not even Mother Theresa these days.
Moral of the story? You never know and if you think you can work a plan, if you listen real close, you can hear chuckling in the wind.
I have no god to lie for, therefore i have no need to lie, i also consider any form of deliberate deceit to be abhorrent. Yes to me lying is immoral,you may have more lax moral standards
As to thriving? Seems I have only one dissenter, you... Far less than i expected considering the content of my original post on this thread
I see you have several throughout the forum
And then again "maybe" other animals... As i have stated, please do not misrepresent me (by lying) just to massage your own ego.
@Segev Moran
I had a response written up, but realized it probably isn't productive. It's clear that theists like myself are not the intended target of your query. It would really be helpful for some of us if more precise terms were used - maybe avoid saying "theist" when you mean "Abrahamic monotheist" or "follower of classical monotheism." Make the sample frame more explicit, as it were? If you're not clear on why this is important, that may be part of what stands in the way of your goal of understanding this thing you are calling "theist logic" (still a downright bizarre term to me). Getting good data hinges on asking the right questions.
('cause you don't want people who are outside of your sample frame like me mucking up your data, yes?)
I had a response written up, but realized it probably isn't productive. It's clear that theists like myself are not the intended target of your query. It would really be helpful for some of us if more precise terms were used - maybe avoid saying "theist" when you mean "Abrahamic monotheist" or "follower of classical monotheism." Make the sample frame more explicit, as it were? If you're not clear on why this is important, that may be part of what stands in the way of your goal of understanding this thing you are calling "theist logic" (still a downright bizarre term to me). Getting good data hinges on asking the right questions.
('cause you don't want people who are outside of your sample frame like me mucking up your data, yes?)
Worshipper
Active Member
I'd say that's actually the other way around. The existence of unsolved problems suggests that mathematics is more invention than discovery.
Another field where we have unsolved problems is artificial intelligence. One problem we're close to a solution on is how/whether AI can consistently beat humans at go. But surely both go and AI are invented and not discovered.
Now let's take an example that's firmly in the field of discovery. How tall is a mountain that's just been discovered? Well that's not unsolved; the solution is obvious. Go and measure it.
But how do you measure a mountain? It's not like you can ask it to stand up straight against the door jamb and then pencil in a line at the summit. So the problem of how to measure a mountain had to be solved. That is, we had to invent a way to measure the mountain's height cheaply and accurately.
It would seem, then, that discovered knowledge is gained through observation, and that it's invented knowledge that's gained through solution.
MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
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?
I think one major difference, is what skeptics and theists grasp as cause.
When i ask my self, 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 he street.
My goal will be to make sure the old man successfully crosses the road. I of course also want to provide example to others that it is not a bad habit to help the older.
As for the events that leads 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).
The more i debate, the more i try to clearly understand the logic behind the theist beliefs, and i really cant 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
Its really very simple. Secular and spiritual people have a different view of reality at the deepest levels! Christians really really really really believe God exists. Since God exists this existence is not as real as the eternal life that is after this one. We really really really really really believe that. I truly do not think many atheists etc can understand what that means. We also believe God is what I call an 'reality anchor' (RA). Everyone has one. Many atheists use 'self' as the RA. Some use science. I believe this is where you are having a difficult time understanding us. So when we see someone rejecting God its the exact same thing as a secular orientated person watching a friend standing on a train track with a train bearing down on them. They would scream 'Get off the freakin' track man, you are going to die! ' See? Its not logic that is the problem, rather its the inability to believe an abstract concept as truth. An RA is what a person uses to compare against to determine truth. I am posting a hyperlink that relates to some of the above;
AUBURN, Alabama -- Researchers at Auburn University, who are searching for the evolutionary source of religion in human societies, say biological factors may play a key role in shaping our religious beliefs. Read more at;
Is an atheist's brain the same as a believer's? New research says religious and non-religious minds work differently
; {>
MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
Scripture says something like that. More along the lines of a closed mind can not learn truth....no that's not it, lol, the verse escapes me, I'll look for it,. In the meantime I think its like when an athlete baseball player says he hits more home runs when he does not concentrate on the ball, he just knows he is going to send it to the bleachers, its not logical but it works...doesn't it? Ahhh' I'm getting silly ....been here too long....
I'm leavin' going to get something good to eat....
; {>
MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
Assuming sally hates to get wet, and she have an umbrella that she really loves, yet suddenly she will go running in the rain with her umbrella, might be though of as irrational.
There is however, always, a reason why someone will do something irrational, and once you understand that reason, it sometimes turns out to be quite rational.
On the contrary. logic is based (mostly) on probability.
this example is meaningless because you don't have enough information to make the statement you make here.
I can tell you with certainty that out of 20 eggs, that i will pound upon one by one, with a 5 kg hammer (assuming the hammer hits the egg in the center each hit and the egg is held to the ground) , 100% will break.
Agreed. I didn't make such assumption, you did.
Yep. that is why we never say it.
It will be the same as we could forecast the weather to a 100% accuracy.
for know, we can't. we don't have enough understanding of it.
The day we will be able to forecast in a 100% accuracy the weather in each point on our planet, i can assure you we will have no reason to develop the weather forecast on earth anymore, the next logical step would be to manipulate the weather as we see fit.
Nothing is absolute.
If you can provide a better explanation, i will gladly embrace it.
what?
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
It is not 0%. it is 1 divided by infinity.
well.. there is a 1 to infinity chance it exists.
How did you calculate 0% ??? Math.round(1/infinity) = 0 ?
[/QUOTE]
By a similar argument, 100% of the events we know of might not actually include all of the events we know of!
Same goes for here... unknown numbers.
No it is not.
End Mind Bender
You cannot calculate probability to an unknown number of possibilities.
What you can do, if you don't have such information, is to start and track the results you get each measurement.
so far by the measurements we made, there is a not one time we encountered .2223 in the billions of measurements we took(and it doesn't matter what .2223 represents).
So for now, based on the measurements we have, the probability of the number 0.2223 is very very low.
So now we have two types of probability, the theoretical, that is an unknown (1/infinity) and the observational (0/a very big number).
Last edited:
Worshipper
Active Member
I loved this paragraph from further down in that article:
So atheists basically still get their minds blown playing peekaboo.
I certainly feel flattered by this idea, but this is definitely one of those situations where I want to see the study itself and not just the news piece about it.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
"The problem with logic is that it doesn't really apply like this to the real world."
Mathematics makes use of Axiomatic Set Theory to derive true statements in the subfields of logic and probability.
Unfortunately, I cannot corroborate your conclusion (mainly because I have not conducted this experiment myself), but also because you have failed to include vital information pertaining to the experiment. Simply put your experiment does not control all the random variables. In other words,
Anyways, I think we've gotten a little bit off-topic. You wanted someone to come onto the thread and
As I understand it, theists have a fundamental axiom in their philosophy: "a deity exists".
From there, it is seems obvious to suggest that morality is based upon a deity.
From what I can tell, you seem to be not accepting that "a deity exists". So it seems clear that you can't accept the logic of theists for this very simple reason.
Maybe you are discussing morality with a theist somewhere and you start talking about causes and you get to a certain point where the theist says, "and that's because God" and you'll say, "what?". And no matter how the conversation goes from there, you're always at an impasse. There is no logic that proves the existence of a deity in the Theistic Philosophy. It's an axiom and theists are concerned with deducing the qualities of a deity. I'm speaking generally, of course, because some theists come to the conclusion that a god exists based on philosophical arguments, but regardless of this once the conclusion of a deity has been reached, it requires no further proof. A mathematician doesn't require people to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 (yes, a proof exists; no, you don't want to know it) every time he adds two numbers.
I'm not sure how helpful this explanation is to you as it doesn't help reconcile a non-theist philosophy with a theist one.
"On the contrary. logic is based (mostly) on probability."
From an axiomatic point of view, logic is not based on probability.Mathematics makes use of Axiomatic Set Theory to derive true statements in the subfields of logic and probability.
"I can tell you with certainty that out of 20 eggs, that i will pound upon one by one, with a 5 kg hammer (assuming the hammer hits the egg in the center each hit and the egg is held to the ground) , 100% will break."
Unfortunately, I cannot corroborate your conclusion (mainly because I have not conducted this experiment myself), but also because you have failed to include vital information pertaining to the experiment. Simply put your experiment does not control all the random variables. In other words,
"this example is meaningless because you don't have enough information to make the statement you make here."
Essentially, you made a Sally raining statement and I'm telling you that it may be raining but Sally didn't take her umbrella with her.what "what?"?
You don't have to take my word for it. Go ask any Real Analytics Math Professor who can tell you why the Measure of the Cantor Set is Zero. I didn't come up with the mind bender or the proof; it is accepted mathematical truth. It may seem strange and non-intuitive (it certainly shocked me), but there isn't any accepted mathematical argument you can use to deny it.
Anyways, I think we've gotten a little bit off-topic. You wanted someone to come onto the thread and
As I understand it, theists have a fundamental axiom in their philosophy: "a deity exists".
From there, it is seems obvious to suggest that morality is based upon a deity.
From what I can tell, you seem to be not accepting that "a deity exists". So it seems clear that you can't accept the logic of theists for this very simple reason.
Maybe you are discussing morality with a theist somewhere and you start talking about causes and you get to a certain point where the theist says, "and that's because God" and you'll say, "what?". And no matter how the conversation goes from there, you're always at an impasse. There is no logic that proves the existence of a deity in the Theistic Philosophy. It's an axiom and theists are concerned with deducing the qualities of a deity. I'm speaking generally, of course, because some theists come to the conclusion that a god exists based on philosophical arguments, but regardless of this once the conclusion of a deity has been reached, it requires no further proof. A mathematician doesn't require people to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 (yes, a proof exists; no, you don't want to know it) every time he adds two numbers.
I'm not sure how helpful this explanation is to you as it doesn't help reconcile a non-theist philosophy with a theist one.
Modus Ponens expressions are intended to, by the form, make the conclusion unavoidable if the premises are true. There is not a moral implication attached to the subject, Sally. That's ridiculous.
MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
I loved this paragraph from further down in that article:
So atheists basically still get their minds blown playing peekaboo.
I certainly feel flattered by this idea, but this is definitely one of those situations where I want to see the study itself and not just the news piece about it.
I would also be interested in reading the study. I KNOW from experience and observation that the minds and brains of those who hold a secular world view are 'different'* than those that have a spiritual or metaphysical world view. (for this thread I am defining metaphysical as follows; METAPHYSICS ... Relating to the transcendent (see transcendent 1) or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses fleeing from experience to a metaphysical realm — John Dewey).
Note;
*Different..... By different I mean those that hold a secular world view are not better or worse than those that believe in supernatural events etc, they just think differently on many issues. In fact I think the world needs both kinds of thinkers and is what I was driving at in my comments about the Vienna circle squashing metaphysical thinkers and of allowing only ideas etc that has a logical progressive foundations. It set the 'western mind' forever in a suffocating intellectual muck that is only now becoming apparent especially as our empirical science breaks down in cutting edge physics etc.
; { >