Pogo
Well-Known Member
No logic is the structure that we use to determine the validity of an argument, evidence feeds into that.
-
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!
Atheists believe in miracles more than believers
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Do you understand the difference between valid and sound? Can you explain it?
Occam's Razor is not controversial. It is a tool that critical thinkers use to weed out improbable alternatives in favor of more probable answers. It's commonly used against believers who put forth non-factual beliefs.
OK, you made an error in a previous post.
Yes, like any critical thinker I won't accept claims without adequate evidence that they are true. The more outrageous the claim, like religious claims, them more evidence is required. Theists fail to provide even a small degree of evidence that their beliefs are true. This is why they often fall back on faith as the reason they believe.
Which is why I'm an atheist, because I can't honestly deceive myself this way.
So being a theist suddenly makes a fallible mortal the "authority that can create a God, but only for yourself."? This is an example of magical thinking, where the fallible mortal can create "reality" by simply imagining it. Critical thinkers avoid this illusion. They are capable of imagining and illusion, but they have the discipline of mind to understand when they are forming an illusion versus being confused that the illusion is real.
So are you admitting that your religious activity is for the hormone hit in the reward center of your brain? The thing is if I'm getting a similar hit my debating why do you opt for activity where you have to convince yourself that illusions are real?
And there's that emotional reactance coming back. This occurs when someone feels threatened.
Anyone has the freedom to create their own "truth", even when it isn't true at all. Those who seek truth want it to be objective and based on facts and sound reasoning.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I raised logical and philosophical objections. None of the alternative points of view I put forward were actually mine personally, so your claim simply doesn't stand up.
It is you who seems determined that your personal view, and yours alone, must be correct, without regard to millennia of philosophical thought, including from theists, and modern science, and despite that fact that your own view that everything is subjective entirely undermines it.
All must bow down to the towering intellect of @PureX!
Just desperately cling to your own.
Relevance? Nobody is talking about a spinning sphere, or anything like it.
No. In the eternalist view, time doesn't really 'pass' at all. It's a dimension. The passing of time seems to be subjective.
But nobody is suggesting a simple moment repeating. I'm not even suggesting an infinite time (yet again, eternalism, is not eternity), I'm agnostic about it. You seem to think an infinite time is incoherent but can't provide any logical support.
How would you know if this was part of an endlessly repeating cycle or not? Maybe we've had this conversation an infinite number of times already (hell, it seems that way as it is). We can only be aware of a finite amount of time.
Why would extending it out to infinity change the finite part we are aware of? It's not like there's even a trend you're following. Would there be less change here if time extended 14 trillion years into the past, rather than just 14 billion? How about 10¹ ⁰⁰⁰ ⁰⁰⁰ ⁰⁰⁰ ⁰⁰⁰ ⁰⁰⁰ ⁰⁰⁰ ⁰⁰⁰ years back? Any less change here?
If you think I'm "desperately seeking" reasons to object, you're sadly mistaken. I've thought a lot about this, not to mention read a lot about it and looked at many different points of view, it's the typing it out that takes time and effort.
Your personal certainty is, quite frankly, just absurd.
And, of course, all this is an argument about objective, external reality which you constantly deny when anybody else tries to refer to it. One rule for you.......
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Ah, so when it's cognition it's "the mystery source of the universe (God) would also manifest cognition" but when it's fusion it's not 'also', it's just doing it via the stars. Got it. One rule for things you like, something else for anything you don't.
Insult is always a way to run away from an inconvenient point you have no answer to...
This is seriously getting comical.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I'm not.
False equivalence. Common ancestry is an actual explanation (a genetic fact, actually). Not the name of a yet to be solved problem.
It's not. The problem is that you refuse to understand what physicists refer to when they talk about dark matter, even though plenty of people here have tried to explain it to you. As usual, you just stick to your falsehoods and ignore any and all corrections of your mistakes.
This is a you-problem.
I'm skipping the rest of your post, because all it does is continue to build on the same falsehood.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The "source of existence" logically would not be part of "existence".By Jove, I think he's starting to get it!
Yes, the proposition is that God TRANSCENDS the limitations of existence (space, time, matter, etc.). Which would be quite logical if God were being proposed as the SOURCE of existence. Which it is. In fact, this makes more logical sense than proposing that the existence that we experience in every way as finite, and evolving, is actually eternal (infinite and perpetual), or that existence somehow managed to enable itself into being.
Just sayin'.
Do you see how this makes no sense?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I will as soon as you show me that undetectable cookie monsters can't exist.
I'll go with "how to shift the burden of proof" for 500 dollars.
That's right. The person who has to support the assertion that such things CAN exist, is the person who posits the existence of such things.
I await without holding my breath.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
That makes no sense at all.
Pointing out that a certain assertion has no evidence at all, does not require one to provide an alternative assertion.
What nonsense............
Yeah, asking for evidence to support an assertion is a "meme", sure.
It's upto the one making the assertion to describe it in such a way that an objective metric is even possible, and if it is possible, what it looks like.
That's your job, not ours.
gnostic
The Lost One
No, it isn’t.
Logic is a person’s use of reasoning, justifying his or her argument, through some premises to reach a valid conclusion.
Formal logic is often using artificial structure in language, such as those used in mathematical equations to solve problems, hence this type of formal logic is often referred to mathematical logic. Other formal logic can be frequently found in many computer programming languages.
Informal logic are logic applied to arguments that are addressed in natural language.
In sciences, scientists would include combinations of both formal and informal logic in their explanatory models & in their predictive models…meaning they will include mathematical equations or formulas (formal) as small parts of larger explanations (informal).
Some people are better at logic than others.
What you don’t seem to understand, PureX, is that logic don’t mean it is correct, especially in natural sciences, because the explanation or argument can be correct or incorrect, depending on whether the evidence support or don’t support the explanation or argument.
So if the evidence don’t support the logical explanation in the model, then the evidence has refuted the model, which would mean the logic in the hypothesis is wrong. In science, it is the evidence that decides whether the logic is true or false.
Do not confuse logic with evidence, PureX…they are not synonymous. Evidence are independent of any one person’s logic.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
So, very bad reasons then.
It's been explained to him a thousand times, but he insists on reasoning from his strawman definition - which he has to know is not the definition being used here.
PureX
Veteran Member
No logic; no "evidence". Therefor, the presence of logic IS the evidence. But by all means, keep fighting about it.
PureX
Veteran Member
Meets a criteria or it doesn't.
No. Logic (as in formal logic, propositional logic) gives you the rules on how to connect several premises to arrive at a conclusion. The evidence lies outside of it.
E.g. "All green chairs are sentient. This neutron star is a green chair. Therefore, this neutron star is sentient." is perfectly valid logic, but it is still wrong, presuming you agree with me that the premises are not backed by any evidence.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, that is not what I get when I google it. Or how I learned it in a book about logic.
There are 2 criteria at play and not just one. And even that is as per @gnostic post to simple.
So here:
"A valid argument need not have true premises or a true conclusion. On the other hand, a sound argument DOES need to have true premises and a true conclusion."
You can google other explanation, but it doesn't seem you understand valid and sound.
gnostic
The Lost One
Again, no.
Logic cannot exist without a person thinking, without him or her reasoning. Whether the reasoning is correct or not, it doesn’t without exist making the argument.
logic doesn’t exist independently of the person’s reasoning.
Right now, I personally don’t think your reasoning is logical.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Along with any number of other words that he insists on his own definition of in spite of correction which makes it nearly impossible to understand his "logic".
PureX
Veteran Member
And I explained why they were logically flawed.
Irrelevant. You posted them as something you thought were viable alternatives. They weren't.
We are discussing the source of existence. No one has any idea what is "correct". All we can do is imagine the possibilities and debate them logically. The eternal existence and the self-enabled existence propositions are not logical.
See, you don't even try to understand. It's a waste of time.
Time is an increment of change. No change. No time. You are trying to propose an eternity of change. But this is a contradiction of terms. And I posed the spinning sphere to try and show you why the idea is inherently self-contradicting. Change that doesn't change is not change. A universe that endlessly repeats itself is not changing any more than a perpetually spinning sphere in space is changing. If you were standing on the sphere for a quarter of it's revolution it would be "changing", to you. But when the field of possibility is expanded to infinite rotations, there is no change taking place at all.
You declared it eternal. Therefor it has to be an endlessly repeating cycle of change that isn't changing. This is logically incoherent.
Maybe anything. The question is not is this possible. The question is; is it logical. Change that doesn't change is not logical. Time that measures no change is moot.
We are not discussing the finite part that we are aware of. We are discussing the eternal part that you proposed.
An eternity is infinite. Your numbers are irrelevant. And this is also why time is irrelevant within an eternity. The increments of "time" are irrelevant because they are measuring an eternity. It's simply illogical to measure an eternity of time. It's like trying to quantify perfection.
Then I apologize for saying otherwise. But all I have to respond to is what you post.
I am certain of nothing. But I write with authority.
Last edited: