leibowde84
Veteran Member
I think "justifiable conclusions" get us closer to truth.Logic is a tool for arriving at justifiable conclusions.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I think "justifiable conclusions" get us closer to truth.Logic is a tool for arriving at justifiable conclusions.
Only when the premises are valid. Conversely, one can arrive at 'true' (i.e., correct) answers using faulty reasoning.I think "justifiable conclusions" get us closer to truth.
Very true. But, don't "justifiable conclusions" assume valid premises? Or are you saying "justiffiable" only assuming that the premises are true?Only when the premises are valid. Conversely, one can arrive at 'true' (i.e., correct) answers using faulty reasoning.
No.Very true. But, don't "justifiable conclusions" assume valid premises? Or are you saying "justiffiable" only assuming that the premises are true?
So, no to the first question? Fair enough. I will cough that up to a false assumption on my part.
After reading the thread, I think you're conflating "logical" with "reasonable."
Stop polluting the thread.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.
Can't always do so.....I chose to go for brevity
Whatever Theif.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.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.
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."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?
No no no!And "true" with "possible," yes.
That's all very sweet, but it has zero to do with 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.
Which part Jayhawker?That's all very sweet, but it has zero to do with logic.
the point I attempted to make....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.
hmmmm...may have to move to the religious debate section to answer the notion you present here.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.
All of it.Which part Jayhawker?
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.
Philosophy and religious beliefs overlap to a certain degree. I am sure philosophers would hope that religious people use logichmmmm...may have to move to the religious debate section to answer the notion you present here.
Science is the process of guessing and testing.All of it.