-
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!
Does logic equal truth?
- Thread starter God lover
- Start date
Shad
Veteran Member
No as "guessing" the most logical way is inductive logic which can never make any 100% truth claims. So your argument misses the point since you make mistakes regarding the function of logic.
God lover
Member
Thank you
Shad
Veteran Member
I hope you understand I am criticizing the OP rather than agreeing with you.
God lover
Member
Logic is primarily a way to determine that, given some hypothesis and some set of assumptions, an inference leads to a valid conclusion. This means nothing in and of itself, because we can logically assume any set of premises and reach infinitely many logical conclusions.
Why did you limit your list to those three options? Why not include others that are demonstrably possible:
- hot air balloon
- hand-dug tunnel
- dog sled (yes, it's summer, but it sometimes snows in the summer)
- elephant
- hovercraft
... or others that haven't been demonstrated to be possible, but haven't been demonstrated to be IMpossible:
- teleportation
- wormhole
- time machine
- alien spacecraft
- being thrown there by a poltergeist
- carriage pulled by chupacabras
God lover
Member
Okay. So if we assume information our logic won't necessarily have truth. Is that what you are saying? That seems right. Did you mean that?
God lover
Member
I chose to go for brevity
Shad
Veteran Member
If one is using deductive logic then it has to be true provided the premises as sound and format is valid.
Hypothetical example as follows
All redheads are dumb
Bob is a redhead
Therefore Bob is dumb.
If the first and second premises are true then the argument is valid and sound. Thus this argument from logic is 100% true as it is pure deductive logic. Of course one needs to provide evidence for the premises or have everyone accept it as an axiom. This is where things become blurred as an external source of information are required for the premises, beside treating it as an axiom. Logic, inductive, can provide probability thus not 100% true but 99.99999% certainty at best. For example assuming the sun will rise tomorrow, figure of speech, is based on induction of prior rising of the sun. However there is a chance the sun will not thus there can be a very high probability but not 100% certainty. So one can not treat logic as a whole equal to truth as different forms of logic by definition are incapable of providing this. However it is the best tool we have while empiricism is the best tool for providing support for premises.
Hypothetical example as follows
All redheads are dumb
Bob is a redhead
Therefore Bob is dumb.
If the first and second premises are true then the argument is valid and sound. Thus this argument from logic is 100% true as it is pure deductive logic. Of course one needs to provide evidence for the premises or have everyone accept it as an axiom. This is where things become blurred as an external source of information are required for the premises, beside treating it as an axiom. Logic, inductive, can provide probability thus not 100% true but 99.99999% certainty at best. For example assuming the sun will rise tomorrow, figure of speech, is based on induction of prior rising of the sun. However there is a chance the sun will not thus there can be a very high probability but not 100% certainty. So one can not treat logic as a whole equal to truth as different forms of logic by definition are incapable of providing this. However it is the best tool we have while empiricism is the best tool for providing support for premises.
Shad
Veteran Member
As it was? Inductive logic and probability which is only one format of logic using two methods of logic.
God lover
Member
"Original post" - the first post of the thread.
... or "original poster" - the person who started the thread.
Shad
Veteran Member
That was AWESOME! Thanks Shad.
I have no further questions
Just remember it is a tool we created. Thus it can be reformed or misused. For example if you look up Aquinas's 5 ways you may notice 3 of the argument are roughly the same but use different formats thus have a form of separation which may or may not be significant to different people. For myself I reduce the 5 ways down to 3 ways. For a Catholic they will support the 5 ways as is or reformat under Thomism
Ah. So if you show up at my door and wonder about how you got there, I should give equal weight to the possibility that you came by tunnel or flying saucer as I do to the possibility that you walked or drove?I chose to go for brevity
God lover
Member
Yes I edited my forum post because your respon
I guess I could have included, accidentally tripping, 4.5 billion times around the planet
God lover
Member
I can't help but feel like you want to make me feel stupid for showing up and wondering how I got there.
There I edited the silly OP for you. Silly me
Shad
Veteran Member
I guess I could have included, accidentally tripping, 4.5 billion times around the planet
Well one can eliminate possible forms of travel as having low probability. However these forms should be considered. For example when I bought a new bike I took it for a trial run which ended up being a 30-40km ride and a visit to my grandparents. They did not expect me to ride that far to visit them. So in their minds my form of transportation was 1. My car. 2. My mother's car (we visit them together more often than not) 3. A friend 4. The bus. etc. A bike if considered was dismissed based on their knowledge of me and the environment (had to bike over a few small mountains/hills in their city). The bike had a very low probability but still was possible.
However form of transportation such as an alien flying saucer can be dismissed quickly for a number of reasons. 1. It is not a form of transportation used by any human on record. 2. There is no evidence of aliens and/or the saucer. Etc, etc. One can apply bayesian methodology which allows for re-evaluation if/when new information is provided. For example aliens and/or flying saucers become common the next day.
God lover
Member
Thanks Shad. It was a response to Penguin's comment about alien spacecraft and wormhole travel. So in context of that I posted another rediculous method of travel. It did have a string attached. But this is fun right?
I'm just trying to point out that you're doing the thing you're apparently arguing against: you filtered out the less reasonable options (e.g. hot air balloon or telekinesis) and kept the most reasonable options (e.g. walking or driving).