Does logic equal truth?

[leibowde84]

Logic is a tool for arriving at justifiable conclusions.

I think "justifiable conclusions" get us closer to truth.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think "justifiable conclusions" get us closer to truth.

Only when the premises are valid. Conversely, one can arrive at 'true' (i.e., correct) answers using faulty reasoning.

 

[leibowde84]

Only when the premises are valid. Conversely, one can arrive at 'true' (i.e., correct) answers using faulty reasoning.

Very true. But, don't "justifiable conclusions" assume valid premises? Or are you saying "justiffiable" only assuming that the premises are true?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Very true. But, don't "justifiable conclusions" assume valid premises? Or are you saying "justiffiable" only assuming that the premises are true?

No.

 

[leibowde84]

No.

So, no to the first question? Fair enough. I will cough that up to a false assumption on my part.

 

[God lover]

Ahhhhh man.

Could I argue that everyone or most people think logically. It's what we do. Even if we don't formally know about the history and terminology behind logic.

We are logical by nature.

Some of us just don't think about things as deeply as others. But we all weigh the facts in some way in order to find out what's true.

Are there some people out there who know they are fooling themselves but actually want to live in a delusion? Maybe a few.

After reading the thread, I think you're conflating "logical" with "reasonable."

Yes, I think my terminology is way off in standard philosophical terms!

I am sincerely striving to find truth. I should clean up my terminology so it doesn't become a distraction!

 

[jerryhgratteau]

In the fact that there is two realities made to every choice. And every time you choose those realities multiply because you in those realities make choices also. So those realities exist on their own planes intersecting only with the closest possible reality next to their own. Now each reality being real has its own infante possible out comes that are the truth of that reality.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In the fact that there is two realities made to every choice. And every time you choose those realities multiply because you in those realities make choices also. So those realities exist on their own planes intersecting only with the closest possible reality next to their own. Now each reality being real has its own infante possible out comes that are the truth of that reality.

Stop polluting the thread.

 

[Thief]

I chose to go for brevity

Can't always do so.....

I have a good example....but you posted in the philosophy section.

for now....
If all animals you have ever seen had four legs.....
and you happen unto the first four legged table you have ever seen....
your correct conclusion might be.....

dead animal.

 

[God lover]

Can't always do so.....

I have a good example....but you posted in the philosophy section.

for now....
If all animals you have ever seen had four legs.....
and you happen unto the first four legged table you have ever seen....
your correct conclusion might be.....

dead animal.

Whatever Theif.

 

[Curious George]

Can't always do so.....

I have a good example....but you posted in the philosophy section.

for now....
If all animals you have ever seen had four legs.....
and you happen unto the first four legged table you have ever seen....
your correct conclusion might be.....

dead animal.

No, if and only if you believe all things with four legs are animals, would this likely be the case.
A counter example will show this easily. Imagine a person who only knew of animals with four legs, but also knew of chairs with four legs

The table, would more reasonably be assimilated as a chair than an animal.

 

[God lover]

"Going where logic won't let us" is what we call guessing. Do you think that guessing is a reliable pathway to truth? Even if you serendipitously made a correct guess, how could you actually know that it was correct if you're beyond the reaches of logic?

I would say letting go of the edge of the pool would be testing. If someone comes to the conclusion that a real and living God may fit as the logical answer, then test that by seeking God or actively keeping eyes open for God.

 

[God lover]

And "true" with "possible," yes.

No no no!
I don't think true equals possible! STOP.

I would be very very very careful not to say that.

I can see how you might have read it thay way. I said a few different things might be logical in explaining one reality. But at thay time what I meant by logic was that someone could use a logical set of (statements?) To support different hypothesis.


I am very concerned with truth. In my mind there is only one truth. There may be 7 billion current human perspectives but they are all different perspectives of the same reality. Even if there is a multiverse or some ki d of multi demensions overlapping this would all be part of the one truth. Simply the way it is.

That's long been my view and it is one thing I would stick up for quite strongly.

But I totally see how you might have interpreted my writing thay way. It further makes me realize I need to learn propper terminology. especially in this forum.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would say letting go of the edge of the pool would be testing. If someone comes to the conclusion that a real and living God may fit as the logical answer, then test that by seeking God or actively keeping eyes open for God.

That's all very sweet, but it has zero to do with logic.

 

[God lover]

That's all very sweet, but it has zero to do with logic.

Which part Jayhawker?

 

[Thief]

No, if and only if you believe all things with four legs are animals, would this likely be the case.
A counter example will show this easily. Imagine a person who only knew of animals with four legs, but also knew of chairs with four legs

The table, would more reasonably be assimilated as a chair than an animal.

the point I attempted to make....
logic is a method greatly dependent on incoming info.

Going back to the previous post...
you know only four legged animals....
you come upon the first table you ever saw....
it's a dead animal.

If you said....it's a rock.
that would be illogical.....rocks are not four legged ( and please, no unusual pics)

If you said....it's a tree.
illogical, as trees have roots.

and so on...

Logic needs the set of info adhered to.

 

[Thief]

I would say letting go of the edge of the pool would be testing. If someone comes to the conclusion that a real and living God may fit as the logical answer, then test that by seeking God or actively keeping eyes open for God.

hmmmm...may have to move to the religious debate section to answer the notion you present here.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Which part Jayhawker?

All of it.

 

[God lover]

the point I attempted to make....
logic is a method greatly dependent on incoming info.

Going back to the previous post...
you know only four legged animals....
you come upon the first table you ever saw....
it's a dead animal.

If you said....it's a rock.
that would be illogical.....rocks are not four legged ( and please, no unusual pics)

If you said....it's a tree.
illogical, as trees have roots.

and so on...

Logic needs the set of info adhered to.

hmmmm...may have to move to the religious debate section to answer the notion you present here.

Philosophy and religious beliefs overlap to a certain degree. I am sure philosophers would hope that religious people use logic

 

[God lover]

All of it.

Science is the process of guessing and testing.