Does logic equal truth?

[Thief]

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

maybe I will take a moment to post a fresh op in the debate section....
there is a display of logic I have repeatedly posted.....and it points firmly to a logic most believers don't like.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Science is the process of guessing and testing.

How would you know? And what does that have to do with logic?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would say letting go of the edge of the pool would be testing.

Without logic, how can you "test" in any way that's the least bit reliable?

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.

If we're testing honestly, then there would be some way to conclude that there aren't any gods. What criteria do you suggest? What would tell you, if you saw it, that God isn't there to be found?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Science is the processms of guessing and testing.

Testing in science uses logical inference to arrive at conclusions. You said that your "testing" is "going where logic won't let us."

 

[God lover]

How would you know? And what does that have to do with logic?

Are you suggesting that, because I beleive in God, that I wouldn't know what science is? Update your understanding of the modern Christian. Hello, nice to meet you.

What does scientific research and/or guessing and testing have to do with logic?

Scientists use logic and imagination to come up with their best guesses. If they feel those guesses are substantial enough, they make an effort to prove it with trial and error and replication.

Deductive logic needs facts. The Scientific process should be used in our search for God. But not necessarily searching in the physical realm alone. (Though, I think the art of God suggests the artist.)

I beleive that the most logical explanation for everything we see is God. This would cause me to make the effort to verify this hypothesis by testing it.

I would suggest that we jump from the theoretical and use a similar (if not scientific ) method to "see" God.

It's not for everybody. If someone doesn't feel that logic leads to God, then they need not make the effort to know God personally.

 

[God lover]

Testing in science uses logical inference to arrive at conclusions. You said that your "testing" is "going where logic won't let us."

Good point.

It's a analogy. I'll try to make my point clear.

If we can't let go of our current logic in a test swim, then our logic may not expand towards truth.

You could pick this apart. But I hope you catch the drift. We should move away from the analogy if it comes up short to the point. And thanks for helping me clarify the point.

What I'm trying to get at from the beginning of this OP is that God is real and we can know him experiencialy. I think God is theoretically plausible and logic will lead us to God's truth. From there (or way before the logical path) I would encourage everyone to take action in time to allow God to reveal Himself to you.

He is totally real. This is the validation that we need. It happens. But don't take my word for it. He is your Father too.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are you suggesting that, because I beleive in God, that I wouldn't know what science is? Update your understanding of the modern Christian. Hello, nice to meet you.

I can only base an evaluation on what you've written so far, and you've yet to demonstrate the slightest understanding of, either, logic or science, much less the difference between the two. Nor have you demonstrated the foggiest notion of what scientific testing is all about. It's probably best that you don't present yourself as the poster child of the modern Christian.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Good point.

It's a analogy. I'll try to make my point clear.

If we can't let go of our current logic in a test swim, then our logic may not expand towards truth.

You could pick this apart. But I hope you catch the drift.

Not at all. Right now, it seems like you're happy to appeal to logic and reason when you think it supports your position, but want to be exempt from them when you wouldn't meet normal standards.

We should move away from the analogy if it comes up short to the point. And thanks for helping me clarify the point.

What I'm trying to get at from the beginning of this OP is that God is real and we can know him experiencialy. I think God is theoretically plausible and logic will lead us to God's truth.

What do you think makes God plausible?

The way I see it, depending on the particular version of God you're talking about, we're at "demonstrably impossible" or "not conclusively shown to be impossible." What do you have to bring us past "possible" and all the way to "plausible"?

From there (or way before the logical path) I would encourage everyone to take action in time to allow God to reveal Himself to you.

Meaning what?

He is totally real. This is the validation that we need. It happens. But don't take my word for it. He is your Father too.

I'm certainly not taking your word for it.

 

[Curious George]

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.

yes logic is dependent on information. Whether we are making inductions or deductions we need information to do that.

 

[God lover]

I can only base an evaluation on what you've written so far, and you've yet to demonstrate the slightest understanding of, either, logic or science, much less the difference between the two. Nor have you demonstrated the foggiest notion of what scientific testing is all about. It's probably best that you don't present yourself as the poster child of the modern Christian.

You've made yourself clear.

But what's your defanition of science?

And I admitted throughout this thread that I am not a formerly trained philosopher. My terminology is way off. I am a logical thinker however.

Your insults don't help prove your point. They actually show your illogical bias and emotional investment

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am a logical thinker however.

I understand that you believe that to be true.

Your insults don't help prove your point. They actually show your illogical bias and emotional investment

Which insult specifically? What bias specifically?

 

[God lover]

What do you think makes God plausible?


I'm certainly not taking your word for it

Forgive my lack of terminology accuracy.

I'll try to answer.

Deductive logic (I think is the right term)

Three main options I know of are:

Everything physical has always existed forever in the past. Or keeps exploding and imploding and exploding again.

Or the big bang started from nothing.

Or God, who is a disembodied spirit outside of the universe we know, created it.

If we then fit these ideas against what we know today. I think the God explanation holds all the facts in the best balance.

Many disagree. That's okay with me.


The first 2 (seem) impossible to me. Maybe Shad or penguin or Dustin can help me out here. Perhaps this isn't Deductive logic because I can proof the first 2 wrong.

This is the premise of my logic and we could go deeper. But there is the nutshell.

Got to go to work.

All the best. If I am delusional help me out

Don't take my word for it. Get to know God in your own experience if you want to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Forgive my lack of terminology accuracy.

I'll try to answer.

Deductive logic (I think is the right term)

Three main options I know of are:

Everything physical has always existed forever in the past. Or keeps exploding and imploding and exploding again.

Or the big bang started from nothing.

Or God, who is a disembodied spirit outside of the universe we know, created it.

If we then fit these ideas against what we know today. I think the God explanation holds all the facts in the best balance.

Many disagree. That's okay with me.


The first 2 (seem) impossible to me. Maybe Shad or penguin or Dustin can help me out here. Perhaps this isn't Deductive logic because I can proof the first 2 wrong.

This is the premise of my logic and we could go deeper. But there is the nutshell.

Got to go to work.

All the best. If I am delusional help me out

What you're describing isn't deductive logic; it's a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance (please note that I'm not calling you ignorant; it's just the name of the fallacy). You're making at least two major mistakes in your reasoning:

- assuming that because you can't see how the first two options are possible, they must be impossible.
- assuming that because you can only think of 3 "main options", those are all of the options worth considering.

I'd say you're probably also engaging in special pleading by not examining your God option as critically as the other two. Can you tell us what would allow that option to be possible? And "divine mystery" or the like doesn't count as an explanation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Three main options I know of are:

Everything physical has always existed forever in the past. Or keeps exploding and imploding and exploding again.

Or the big bang started from nothing.

Or God, who is a disembodied spirit outside of the universe we know, created it.

No. Those are not the three main options. The option that you simply fail to see is that the Big Bang was catalyzed by something that we do not yet understand (and may never comprehend). But all the babble about "disembodied spirit" acting intentionally is simply you filling our gap in understanding with your preferred narrative. Your approach is illogical, irrational, and the antithesis of science.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

All the best. If I am delusional help me out

See above.

 

[Willamena]

Forgive my lack of terminology accuracy.

I'll try to answer.

Deductive logic (I think is the right term)

Three main options I know of are:

Everything physical has always existed forever in the past. Or keeps exploding and imploding and exploding again.

Or the big bang started from nothing.

Or God, who is a disembodied spirit outside of the universe we know, created it.

If we then fit these ideas against what we know today. I think the God explanation holds all the facts in the best balance.

Many disagree. That's okay with me.


The first 2 (seem) impossible to me. Maybe Shad or penguin or Dustin can help me out here. Perhaps this isn't Deductive logic because I can proof the first 2 wrong.

This is the premise of my logic and we could go deeper. But there is the nutshell.

Got to go to work.

All the best. If I am delusional help me out

Don't take my word for it. Get to know God in your own experience if you want to.

What if all three options are impossible? Does that mean we should take what seems to us to be the least impossible? Is that logical?
(Hint: look up "impossible.")

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No, actually. The problem comes when one confuses "justified conclusion" with fact.

All bipeds come from Mars.
You are a biped.
Therefore, you come from Mars.​

The conclusion is absolutely justified. The premise is nonsense.

So, you disagree that people often start with a preformed conclusion/idea and then use logic as a way of reverse-engineering an explanation for their conclusion?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, you disagree that people often start with a preformed conclusion/idea and then use logic as a way of reverse-engineering an explanation for their conclusion?

Of course not, but let me offer a slightly different statement:

... people often start with a preformed conclusion/idea and then abuse logic as a way of reverse-engineering an explanation for their conclusion.​

Post #114 is an example.

===================

Edited to add:

In hindsight, I think I may be interpreting the term 'justifiable' in a way that's unhelpful for this discussion. Clearly, a person can start with a flawed premise and logically deduce a conclusion that is no less flawed.​

 

[jerryhgratteau]

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.

Is not philosophy the preponderance of reality

 

[God lover]

What if all three options are impossible? Does that mean we should take what seems to us to be the least impossible? Is that logical?
(Hint: look up "impossible.")

Haha. Actually that is my beleif. This world is impossible! Logically it makes no sense that anything exists. Great comment!

So I don't base my beliefs as much on Philosophy as I do on personal experience. But not in a "what feels best to me" kind of way. I really want to beleive what's true. Philosophy and logic are great. But I think without all the facts they only get us so far.