The illogical logic...

[ChristineM]

Prove it.

Read the thread.

 

[Nous]

Read the thread.

I already read the thread. You haven't been able to substantiate your claims.

 

[Muffled]

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

I believe the rules of logic are the same for everyone.

I believe that is not the normal definition of cause. It usually means to make things happen. There is the noun which means a reason to make things happen and perhaps that is closer to what you are thinking.

I believe it was created. A man may look at his ten fingers (The decimal system) and realize a mathematical truth but it is the creation that makes it ten fingers.

 

[Muffled]

I am not religious but i do have friends of various religions so some fairly interesting discussions have hit the fan.

One interesting and oft discussed subject is morality. It is my belief that morality is a human (and some animals) concept, without morality group living, sets, dens, tribes, families etc won't thrive and stay together. In the human world it lead to civilization which in turn allowed religion to flourish.

I see the religious view as... each religion claims to have invented morality for themselves and castigate, threaten and cajole immoral non believers to follow their faith. Non believers by definition their logic cannot be moral because it is gods way.

Here is the bit that convinced me of religious selfishness. The claim that without their faith you are a sinner and hence immoral, that's religious logic.

And now I'll probably get several posts contradicting my view. Yes it's a generality, many religious folk take other people at face value. My point is that they are let down by those religious fundamentals who don't and use their version of morality as a weapon.

I believe Jews claim that God originated their law (although they have managed to change it to their own ideas when they like) and Muslims claim that their law came from Allah although some of it comes from the Hadiths which are not from God. Christians get their law from Jesus (who is God in the flesh) and it is always contemporary.

I believe the contrary is true that we are quite willing to share our beliefs rather than just keep salvation to ourselves.

I believe that is a supposition although it could be true of some people sometimes; mostly Christians are interested in people getting saved from sin and that doesn't happen until the person admits he is a sinner.

 

[Muffled]

I don't place my logic above anything. It's just a way to support my choices/actions.
Maybe that's a hard thing for religious folks to do, support their choices and actions beyond simply saying they are doing God's will.

I believe that doesn't mean there are no reasons behind what God does but simply that we might not know what they are.

For instance God twice told me on a Sunday morning before I was fully awake not to go to church. That sounds illogical and some would say contrary to the Bible but it turned out that church was cancelled because of a snow storm. I believe it is simply a matter of trust that an omniscient God knows what He is talking about.

 

[Nakosis]

I believe that doesn't mean there are no reasons behind what God does but simply that we might not know what they are.

For instance God twice told me on a Sunday morning before I was fully awake not to go to church. That sounds illogical and some would say contrary to the Bible but it turned out that church was cancelled because of a snow storm. I believe it is simply a matter of trust that an omniscient God knows what He is talking about.

This is from my perspective, you have to decide what is true for you.

I used to talk with God at times. I was very certain that I was answered, given inspiration. I understand how someone can completely accept the realness of this experience.

Problem I have is as I've learned more what the mind is capable of, I question my ability to be certain of the source of these experiences. The subconscious mind can create a spiritual experience for you. The subconscious mind already creates your experience of reality. It is easy to create an spiritual experience for you and make it real.

So how can we know what's real? I don't know if there is a guarantee. I had to become a skeptic in order to question the reality of what I experience. Not because I don't want to believe in God, but because it is difficult to trust what my subconscious mind presents to me as reality.

So I'm always questioning, testing, trying to find so way to validate what my own subconscious mind presents as reality.

Still I respect that you have to make this judgement for yourself.

 

[Segev Moran]

I believe the rules of logic are the same for everyone.

Apparently not.

I believe that is not the normal definition of cause. It usually means to make things happen. There is the noun which means a reason to make things happen and perhaps that is closer to what you are thinking.

I Am not thinking what is the explanation for literal reason, I am trying to understand why theist look at reality with one logic, and change this logic when it comes to god.
To me, I have my logic. my logic works the same for everything in my life.
My logic works the same when it comes to choosing what to wear.
My logic works the same when it comes to which people are my friends.
My logic works the same when it comes to love in general and love for my children in
specific.
My logic works the same when it comes to god and the spiritual.

So i can only assume, that your logic, and my logic, works differently some how.

I believe it was created.

Logic, was created?

A man may look at his ten fingers (The decimal system) and realize a mathematical truth

There is no real mathematical truth.
It seems like you assume we only have ten fingers in order to be able to discover a mathematical truth that was true before we had ten fingers.

wouldn't you accept that we, humans, invented the decimal count? same as the hexadecimal and binary (and other bases).
The same as we invented a 7 days week.
The same as we invented a counting system based on the stars to measure years, months, weeks and so on?

but it is the creation that makes it ten fingers.

We didn't always have 10 fingers
What is "the creation"? is it an event? or an entity?

 

[David T]

So you have no idea of the literal objective reality of the skull in my avatar? If you want to objectively examine it, it can be found at Musée national de Préhistoire, Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, France.

Btw, i was (partially) responsible for it's discovery

So you have no idea of the literal objective reality of the skull in my avatar? If you want to objectively examine it, it can be found at Musée national de Préhistoire, Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, France.

Btw, i was (partially) responsible for it's discovery

Orthodoxy is dull except to the orhtodoxiests?

 

[David T]

The fact astrology deals with stars, doesn't make it scientific.
Astrology is a load of BS that its core art is to be able to come up with words that are so common that anyone can interpret to fit he's own life.

Actually, Astrology is an earlier version of monotheistic religions (Yes.. all of them)

Segev

lol. sorry.. its like saying that in order to understand love you have to understand intimacy, and in order to understand intimacy, you have to understand love.
Besides that, i have yet to meet anyone who understands god

If you treat nature as god, and it makes you feel good, good for you

What i am having trouble with is, that no matter what mystery we face, it always seems to lead believers to the answer god.

How is contemporary science different? We certainly entertain the delusion that scientific narrative is reality "nature as a car engine" but that is a delusion. Good science which is rare challenges orthodoxy, bad science which is common upholds orthodoxy as being fundemental. So when you start to look into religion you are confronted by reductionism or orthodoxy (same thing) parading around in religiois drag befuddled at its delusional nonsense. You cant flip into scientific orthodoxy reductionism and state it's reasoned it certainly is not. I point to religious orthodoxy/reductionism as emperical proof it's so stupid it makes rocks seem like genius'. Science is subject/subjective to nature thats good science, religion is subject\subjective to nature thats good religion. Both are rare, since both are fairly over run by normalacy.

 

[ChristineM]

Orthodoxy is dull except to the orhtodoxiests?

What? How in any way is that an answer to your slur of my avatar and me?

Oh i get it, you are no answering because you have no answer, so you fill the space with random, meaningless words.... Ok, fair enough.

 

[Muffled]

This is from my perspective, you have to decide what is true for you.

I used to talk with God at times. I was very certain that I was answered, given inspiration. I understand how someone can completely accept the realness of this experience.

Problem I have is as I've learned more what the mind is capable of, I question my ability to be certain of the source of these experiences. The subconscious mind can create a spiritual experience for you. The subconscious mind already creates your experience of reality. It is easy to create an spiritual experience for you and make it real.

So how can we know what's real? I don't know if there is a guarantee. I had to become a skeptic in order to question the reality of what I experience. Not because I don't want to believe in God, but because it is difficult to trust what my subconscious mind presents to me as reality.

So I'm always questioning, testing, trying to find so way to validate what my own subconscious mind presents as reality.

Still I respect that you have to make this judgement for yourself.

I believe you would be hard put to believe that you could tell the future. It is after all the way a prophet was validated as having heard from God.

 

[Nakosis]

I believe you would be hard put to believe that you could tell the future. It is after all the way a prophet was validated as having heard from God.

Predicting the future is not that hard. Science does it all the time. Human nature is predictable. For example governments come and go. I could predict the fall of the United States. in a thousand or so years, this occurs, so now I'm a prophet.

Maybe I'll make a dozen predictions, just because I believe that God is speaking to me in dreams or visions. Three or four of those predictions come true, not because of supernatural insight but because human beings are predictable. No one is going to care about the predictions that have not come true... yet. I mean there's always a justification, some creative explanation to explain how the prediction was fulfilled at a previous time, or will be fulfilled at some future time. Folks will point to the three or four times I was correct and be amazed.

 

[Muffled]

Predicting the future is not that hard. Science does it all the time. Human nature is predictable. For example governments come and go. I could predict the fall of the United States. in a thousand or so years, this occurs, so now I'm a prophet.

Maybe I'll make a dozen predictions, just because I believe that God is speaking to me in dreams or visions. Three or four of those predictions come true, not because of supernatural insight but because human beings are predictable. No one is going to care about the predictions that have not come true... yet. I mean there's always a justification, some creative explanation to explain how the prediction was fulfilled at a previous time, or will be fulfilled at some future time. Folks will point to the three or four times I was correct and be amazed.

I believe if that were the case I would be a millionaire.

I believe anyone can predict a certainty. I can predict that Hydrogen and Oxygen will combine to make water.

I believe that is true to some extent.

I believe this is where most prophets including me have a problem. It is easy to say within a thousand years or so but try to narrow it down and it gets much more difficult as many who have tried to figure the end of the world have found out.

I believe so but not a prophet of God.

I believe this is not a scenario that occurs with me.

I believe a cynic would care.

I do not believe this is always the case. I do believe there are some predictions that are made a long time before their fulfillment.

I believe that depends on whether the predictions are amazingly fulfilled.

 

[Nakosis]

I believe if that were the case I would be a millionaire.

I believe anyone can predict a certainty. I can predict that Hydrogen and Oxygen will combine to make water.

I believe that is true to some extent.

I believe this is where most prophets including me have a problem. It is easy to say within a thousand years or so but try to narrow it down and it gets much more difficult as many who have tried to figure the end of the world have found out.

I believe so but not a prophet of God.

I believe this is not a scenario that occurs with me.

I believe a cynic would care.

I do not believe this is always the case. I do believe there are some predictions that are made a long time before their fulfillment.

I believe that depends on whether the predictions are amazingly fulfilled.

You are free to believe as you wish. My beliefs are my beliefs. I wouldn't ask you or anyone else accept them.

 

[Muffled]

You are free to believe as you wish. My beliefs are my beliefs. I wouldn't ask you or anyone else accept them.

I believe one ought to have a basis for ones belief. You at least have a basis albeit a shaky one at best.

 

[Nakosis]

I believe one ought to have a basis for ones belief. You at least have a basis albeit a shaky one at best.

Eh, yeah... Science. It seems more shaky to me to put my trust I don't really know who lived a few thousand years ago. They're not even available that I can ask of them their motivations.