Disproving god with the laws of logic

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I have had a different life than you therefore my logic is not the same as yours. I hold certian ideals therefore it is illogical for me not to believe the way I do. I may disagree with your logic but it is no more wrong than mine if the reasoning behind it can be shown.

Logic is a formal method by which one evaluates arguments and their conclusiveness.
Its not related to "ideals".

 

[Archer]

Logic is a formal method by which one evaluates arguments and their conclusiveness.
Its not related to "ideals".

Incorrect. Our reasoning has much to do with our ideals and reasoning is the start of reaching a logical conclusion.

One man looks at the sky day after day and also observes the night sky and reaches the conclusion that everything revolves around the earth.

Another man does the same thing using a telescope to observe the other planets and seeing how all the planets move in relation to each other. He concludes that the earth rotates.

Both are logical, one is wrong.

I accept a different set of facts than you but that does not make my logic incorrect, it means that I am applying different criteria to my reasoning.

1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.


2. a. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
b. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
c. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.

3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.

I bring the definition (red) so unless you intend to rewrite the dictionary in your own image, my statements of logic are not, in any way, invalid.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Incorrect. Our reasoning has much to do with our ideals and reasoning is the start of reaching a logical conclusion.

One man looks at the sky day after day and also observes the night sky and reaches the conclusion that everything revolves around the earth.

Another man does the same thing using a telescope to observe the other planets and seeing how all the planets move in relation to each other. He concludes that the earth rotates.

Both are logical, one is wrong.

Actually NONE of the two are logical in the form you presented them.
But i think I understand what you want to say.
As I said already logic deals with formal sentences and their conclusiveness.
I think we are not so far apart as you might believe but the difference nontheless is crucial.
Reasoning is what you actually talk about, namely thinking about how things could be or are. For that reasoning we use logic. Logic however is only a ruleset for determining if an assembly of arguments and statements is in itself conclusive without regard to some "outer" truth.

In your example (and in order to understand what i have said last time).
The men observing the sky have different initial assumptions or premisses that you didnt state of course.
Man 1:
1) Earth stands fixed (Premisse)
2) I see the sky moving in relation to earth
3) Ergo: the sky moves

Man2:
1) the sky is fixed (premisse)
2) I see the sky moving in relation to earth
3) Ergo: The earth rotates.

BOTH are logically sound arguments. The problem in both cases lies within the premisse.
Thats why i stated that logic is unrelated to "ideals".
Logic is only the set of rules by which you evaluate the formulations 1-3.
Its not what you use in order to make a statement about the premisses.

Another example perhaps:
Logically correct you can state:
a) All froos are beags
b) Tom is a froo
c) Ergo he is a beag.
Thats correct and still totally nonsense because there exist no definition or term for froo or beag.

You can of course logically conclusively formulate that for example Jesus was born to the virgin mary.
1) The Bible is literaly correct
2) the Bible states Jesus was born to the virgin Mary
3) Ergo: Jesus was born to the virgin Mary
All however rests with the premisse.
If one were to ask now how to proove that the premisse is true we would fall into a circular problem however.

You can also logically conclusively formulate that for example God doesnt exist.
Thats where the question of completeness gets interesting.

I accept a different set of facts than you but that does not make my logic incorrect, it means that I am applying different criteria to my reasoning.

Let me try to find a consensus here ok?
What you perhaps mean (and i would agree) is that you use different premisses and assumptions than me and using your assumptions you can still formulate a logically sound argument. I would not in general contradict this. Of course one can "reason" within his own set premisses.
The question is very often how good the premisses are.

And my claim here would be that the premisses you use and the ones that others use are not equal in quality.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Conclusion

1. The Christian theistic worldview can account for the laws of logic by stating that they come from God.
   1. God is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe being its creator.
   2. God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature.
   3. Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute.
   4. They are absolute because there is an absolute God.
2. The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes, and must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to rationally argue.

It might be a language thing here. Would you please explain to me what the word "absolute" means in this context?

 

[Archer]

Actually NONE of the two are logical in the form you presented them.
But i think I understand what you want to say.
As I said already logic deals with formal sentences and their conclusiveness.
I think we are not so far apart as you might believe but the difference nontheless is crucial.
Reasoning is what you actually talk about, namely thinking about how things could be or are. For that reasoning we use logic. Logic however is only a ruleset for determining if an assembly of arguments and statements is in itself conclusive without regard to some "outer" truth.

In your example (and in order to understand what i have said last time).
The men observing the sky have different initial assumptions or premisses that you didnt state of course.
Man 1:
1) Earth stands fixed (Premisse)
2) I see the sky moving in relation to earth
3) Ergo: the sky moves

Man2:
1) the sky is fixed (premisse)
2) I see the sky moving in relation to earth
3) Ergo: The earth rotates.

BOTH are logically sound arguments. The problem in both cases lies within the premisse.
Thats why i stated that logic is unrelated to "ideals".
Logic is only the set of rules by which you evaluate the formulations 1-3.
Its not what you use in order to make a statement about the premisses.

Another example perhaps:
Logically correct you can state:
a) All froos are beags
b) Tom is a froo
c) Ergo he is a beag.
Thats correct and still totally nonsense because there exist no definition or term for froo or beag.

You can of course logically conclusively formulate that for example Jesus was born to the virgin mary.
1) The Bible is literaly correct
2) the Bible states Jesus was born to the virgin Mary
3) Ergo: Jesus was born to the virgin Mary
All however rests with the premisse.
If one were to ask now how to proove that the premisse is true we would fall into a circular problem however.

You can also logically conclusively formulate that for example God doesnt exist.
Thats where the question of completeness gets interesting.


Let me try to find a consensus here ok?
What you perhaps mean (and i would agree) is that you use different premisses and assumptions than me and using your assumptions you can still formulate a logically sound argument. I would not in general contradict this. Of course one can "reason" within his own set premisses.
The question is very often how good the premisses are.

And my claim here would be that the premisses you use and the ones that others use are not equal in quality.

I would agree for the most part and I think you are correct just a differing view on how it is put together. I myself find it logical to reach common ground which we are doing

So from a logical standpoint, using what you will, why would it be illogical to believe in what we cannot see? Love for example.

 

[Archer]

It might be a language thing here. Would you please explain to me what the word "absolute" means in this context?

I pulled it as it makes me look like an atheist by the definitions given.

Some accept the Bible as an absolute and I do not.

I am not that radical and this statement upon further review was over the top.

 

[Archer]

Well I was going to go with the love idea as a point of reference or the control but love is illogical so I need to do some thinking. I think we can come to a mutual understanding and realize that ideas (Love, Hate and God) fall outside the scope of logic.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

So from a logical standpoint, using what you will, why would it be illogical to believe in what we cannot see? Love for example.

With see i guess you mean observe?
We do of course observe love (in a very technical sense even), so this might not be so good an example. And i do not "believe" in love. At least i dont know what this would mean.

I guess you mean things like Gods, fairies, unicorns and so on, which are not generally observed by mankind but supposedly just by a minority.

Basically I think its impracticale to believe in what we cant observe.
At first sight its not a matter of logic at all.
If we believed in ALL that potentially might exist while we cant observe it then we would spend quite some time with that (from a pragmatic point of view).

However i think it IS possible to show a logical problem IF one sets up the argument correctly. Let me try a 30 second argument.
1) Belief is not based on absolute or observable facts or logically sound reasoning.
2) Things which are unobservable by us may potentially exist.
3) If they may exist and believe in them need not be conclusively reasoned then believe in them is logically "ok".

Now there IS a problem however. For if we accepted things as stated above, then you would state that EVERY belief is ok. Belief in EVERYTHING unseen at the same time and with the same conviction. You would have to believe in God just as you would have to believe in Wotan and Zeus and Thor and Budda.
Since different beliefs entail different statements you would end up in a paradox. You can't believe ALL things possible that are unseen.
And THAT is where it gets illogical or at least inconsistent. In order to keep your belief you must make "some" distinction distinction between things that have initially the same single quality: they cant be observed. Why however would a belief in God be granted while belief in a unicorn would not be equally granted?
I could make up a formally correct religion based on some unseen entity, yet you wouldnt believe it with the same intensity as God.

The way to "solve" this problem would be to state that the belief in A is somewhat justified while the belief in B is not. The question: why ?

The problem is to draw a distinction between two objects of which you know nothing and cant observe. And that is not a trivial issue. Actually it is impossible unless you break the rules of logic.I must say i havent found any logically sound argument that doesnt end up in circular reasoning basing all on the assumption that the believed god is real in the first place.

Of course one could also try a different way.
If you define belief as a choice ...
1) Belief doesnt have to be reasonable
2) Belief is a choice
3) Ergo belief doesnt require observable things.

Well thats fine and works, but i think the formulation itself exposes something here which is perhaps not the thing that many would like to admit.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Well I was going to go with the love idea as a point of reference or the control but love is illogical so I need to do some thinking. I think we can come to a mutual understanding and realize that ideas (Love, Hate and God) fall outside the scope of logic.

I think one must ask the question what love actually is.

 

[Thief]

Of the several emotions we humans exhibit...only humor is considered irrational.
All other emotions can be accounted for.

 

[Kurt31416]

• Russell Paradox—Consider the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. Is this set a member of itself?
• Epimenides Paradox—Consider this statement: ``This statement is false.'' Is this statement true?
• Berry Paradox—Consider this sentence: ``Find the smallest positive integer which to be specified requires more characters than there are in this sentence.'' Does this sentence specify a positive integer?

Three paradoxes delimit what can be proved. The first, devised by Bertrand Russell, indicated that informal reasoning in mathematics can yield contradictions, and it led to the creation of formal systems. The second, attributed to Epimenides, was adapted by Gödel to show that even within a formal system there are true statements that are unprovable. The third leads to the demonstration that a specific number cannot be proved random.

Randomness and Mathematical Proof

All axiomatic systems of interest are incomplete. That includes all logic. The logic/math fails at even doing the Quantum Theory, much less know the mind of God.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I would agree for the most part and I think you are correct just a differing view on how it is put together. I myself find it logical to reach common ground which we are doing

So from a logical standpoint, using what you will, why would it be illogical to believe in what we cannot see? Love for example.

But we CAN see love. Don't you see it around you everyday? I do.

 

[Thief]

I suppose this discussion will now revert to "random events" again.
See postings prior to #131.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... The second, attributed to Epimenides, was adapted by Gödel to show that even within a formal system there are true statements that are unprovable.

And from this we get the now infamous Kurt's Krappy Konclusion, i.e., ...

• There are true statements that are unprovable.
• "God exists" is an unprovable statement.
• Therefore, "God exists" is true.

Looks like somebody could use ...

 

[Thief]

Disproving God with emotions?
Most people believe because of emotional needs. They want to.....

 

[Kurt31416]

And from this we get the now infamous Kurt's Krappy Konclusion, i.e., ...

• There are true statements that are unprovable.
• "God exists" is an unprovable statement.
• Therefore, "God exists" is true.

Looks like somebody could use ...

Yeah, you got it bad. And obsessive fascination with all things Kurt. Sorry, I just can't return the favor, I can't imagine anything more boring than the subject of you.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Disproving God with emotions?
Most people believe because of emotional needs. They want to.....

SO correct! People have emotional needs and so they choose to believe in something that does not manifest physically at all. Frubals to you!

 

[Beaudreaux]

...I can't imagine anything more boring than the subject of you.

Have you tried studying risk assessment in property and casualty underwriting?

 

[Archer]

But we CAN see love. Don't you see it around you everyday? I do.

You cant go there as we can see the effects only. Well let me go to Church so I can see God by getting that feeling!!!

I know you were posting a wise crack and I must say it was a good one.

 

[Beaudreaux]

You cant go there as we can see the effects only. Well let me go to church so I can see god by getting that feeling!!!

I know you were posting a wise crack and I must say it was a good one.

Not a wisecrack at all. I define love as an action, much as many Christians do. When Jesus commands us to love our neighbors, he isn't talking about having a pleasant feeling toward them. He's talking about acts of kindness and goodwill. Those are things we can definitely see and can trace back to the intent of the one doing the loving. Not so with the pleasant feeling some people get in Church.