Is logic over-rated?

[agent_smith]

Then show that math. Should be easy, right?

Sure thing. Before I show you though, I am going to disprove a specific religion - as it is impossible to disprove the Deist Gods. Deism makes no claims about where God is/what God does/any evidence for his existence.

Let G stand for "God" and E stand for "Evidence" (for a specific God).
Just in case you are unaware, ==> means "implies", <== means "is implied by" (not used here) and <==> means "is equivalent to".

G<==>E

If E > 0 Then
P(G=True) > 0
Else
P(G=True) = 0
End If

E = 0
==> P(G=True) = 0


If you get your head around what all of that means (since I slipped into computer programming language a bit...), you will probably disagree with the statement "E = 0"

What does, for example, the Christian bible claim to be true SPECIFICALLY about THEIR God? A worldwide flood? The tower of Babel? (Some claim) a 6000 year old Earth? There is no evidence to support these claims.
Other religions are exactly the same - is there any evidence to support reincarnation? Or any kind of afterlife? Or Jews living in America thousands of years ago? And so on.

Basically, this is my view: No religion can be true, as they all lack evidence. The only "evidence" you can give is "what if?" questions and questionable sources such as the bible.
If your God exists, there should be evidence to show this - and we know exactly where this evidence SHOULD be... but it's not there. Therefore, that God is imaginary.


This is why I am a strong atheist towards Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, ... Gods.
It is also why I am a weak atheist towards the Deist Gods - not because I consider them any more likely to exist, but because they are impossible to disprove using logic.

Logic is not over-rated. If anything, it is under-rated.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Logically, there is no compelling evidence showing God(s) exist.
Therefore, I choose to believe in God(s).

??!!

Correct logic forms a perfect argument. That is why I am an atheist.

Can you give me a compelling logical argument that you exist?

 

[agent_smith]

Can you give me a compelling logical argument that you exist?

I just posted this message to you.

For me to reply to that question, I need to exist. The only other logical (?) solution is that NOTHING exists... but that's a bit silly.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I just posted this message to you.

For me to reply to that question, I need to exist. The only other logical (?) solution is that NOTHING exists... but that's a bit silly.

I'm confused. Can you offer a compelling logical argument that you exist? Let's start with yes or no.

 

[Popeyesays]

I just posted this message to you.

For me to reply to that question, I need to exist. The only other logical (?) solution is that NOTHING exists... but that's a bit silly.

Not really, the most obvious alternative is that the original questioner exists and is positing that you might exist as well.

Regards,
Scott

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Not really, the most obvious alternative is that the original questioner exists and is positing that you might exist as well.

Regards,
Scott

Actually, all I'm asking is that he prove, according to sound logic, that he exists.

 

[Popeyesays]

"Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum "
Descartes

 

[agent_smith]

Implicit assumptions in the argument are that I exist and that communication with me is possible.

Ergo, your argument that I do not exist is actually an argument for my existence.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

"Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum "
Descartes

That's not a logical argument.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Implicit assumptions in the argument are that I exist and that communication with me is possible.

Ergo, your argument that I do not exist is actually an argument for my existence.

You are being quite evasive. I only asked a simple yes or no question; can you offer a compelling logical argument that you exist?

If yes, would you please offer it.

 

[Popeyesays]

That's not a logical argument.

Well, you're running counter to four hundred plus years of philosophical thought.

Regards,
Scott

 

[agent_smith]

You are being quite evasive. I only asked a simple yes or no question; can you offer a compelling logical argument that you exist?

If yes, would you please offer it.

I can prove that my state of "existence" is the same as yours, whatever that is.

If we were to meet, you would be able to use all of your five senses to detect my presence - sight, smell, touch, taste (hmm, maybe not...) and hearing.
Comparing this to the existence of God, you cannot detect his presence directly using any of those senses.

 

[doppelganger]

"Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum "
Descartes

If only that meant something. Alas . . .with apologies to DesCartes, it is but a rhetorical tautology. "I am" is the something fixed in grammar that does the thinking/ovserving. So all it really means is "I think therefore I think."

 

[Popeyesays]

I can prove that my state of "existence" is the same as yours, whatever that is.

If we were to meet, you would be able to use all of your five senses to detect my presence - sight, smell, touch, taste (hmm, maybe not...) and hearing.
Comparing this to the existence of God, you cannot detect his presence directly using any of those senses.

Then God is not material or part of the material universe.

Regards,

Scott

 

[agent_smith]

Then God is not material or part of the material universe.

Regards,

Scott

You can't just invent a place outside of our universe and put God there... if God exists outside of our physical universe then he is not IN our physical universe, ergo he does not exist in our universe.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

So, why do atheists put so much stock in logic?

The need for some kind of god seems intrinsic to human nature, so why not "logic"?

 

[logician]

Then God is not material or part of the material universe.

Regards,

Scott

If this is really true, you cannot possibly know there is a god.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

If this is really true, you cannot possibly know there is a god.

Right in one sense, wrong in another.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

If only that meant something. Alas . . .with apologies to DesCartes, it is but a rhetorical tautology. "I am" is the something fixed in grammar that does the thinking/ovserving. So all it really means is "I think therefore I think."

Hm...interesting! I never really thought of that.

But the spirit of the argument seems something different. Thinking is existing. Descartes' argument is that his existence cannot be doubted, because he is thinking about it.

Another strange loop, I suppose.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well, you're running counter to four hundred plus years of philosophical thought.

Regards,
Scott

Philosophy and logic are two different branches of learning.