Is religion inferior to logic ?

[Aupmanyav]

"Is religion inferior to logic ?": Logic is always better than religion, though religion too has its advantages, IMHO.

 

[Windwalker]

Your question didn't make logical sense because ''who'' refers to people and answers your own question .

Exactly the correct answer. People observe. Therefore your original comment, "Observation is only subjective when nothing is defined," is disproven. All observation is a subjective matter, because people are observing.

Your entire house of cards falls. You think observation lacks a subject subjectively observing? That is illogical and irrational.

 

[Windwalker]

"Is religion inferior to logic ?": Logic is always better than religion, though religion too has its advantages, IMHO.

Better at what though? Is a screwdriver better if you wish to pound a nail? Is a hammer better if you wish to screw a screw? Doesn't each have their own strengths and purposes?

At the point of infinity, don't the rules of logic breaks down, like passing the event horizon of a black hole. Isn't there where reality transcends logic? Isn't there where religion tries to peer, into the Abyss?

 

[stvdv]

In trying to understand any subject , it is firstly of most importance to understand the first principles of a subject.

Is religion inferior to logic ?

No

 

[CharmingOwl]

I will tell you the stories of the gods fighting and dropping coconuts from the sky to kill people, but at the end of the day I do not care about logic because these stories are the culture. At least mythology is like that for my faith idk if others require literalist interpretations.

 

[zerogain]

Exactly the correct answer. People observe. Therefore your original comment, "Observation is only subjective when nothing is defined," is disproven. All observation is a subjective matter, because people are observing.

Your entire house of cards falls. You think observation lacks a subject subjectively observing? That is illogical and irrational.

Example : A man runs ahead of a women with the womens bag in his hand

The observer doesn't know why the man has the womens bag and can interpret the information in several different ways . Without the actual knowledge of why the man has the womens bag , your NRF is observing subjective observation . The observable facts are that the man has the womens bag , the observable facts of why the man has the bag is subjective .
Without the full information of the observation , the information can't be processed by the NRF in being anymore than a man with a womens bag .

Example : The man stole the bag would be subjective observation information !

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Example : A man runs ahead of a women with the womens bag in his hand

The observer doesn't know why the man has the womens bag and can interpret the information in several different ways . Without the actual knowledge of why the man has the womens bag , your NRF is observing subjective observation . The observable facts are that the man has the womens bag , the observable facts of why the man has the bag is subjective .
Without the full information of the observation , the information can't be processed by the NRF in being anymore than a man with a womens bag .

Example : The man stole the bag would be subjective observation information !

How do you know it is the woman's bag?

 

[zerogain]

Axioms are taken as given, and as such are assumed to be true. Which makes them exactly that, assumptions; and one should always be wary of them.

We have to choose a rock upon which to build our church, or our intellectual edifice - but we should not assume that the rock is fixed, or unyielding, or permanent.

Axioms are assumed to be true because they are self evident or if you like , more than obvious !

We age , no assumptions or speculations , it is an axiom fact .

 

[zerogain]

How do you know it is the woman's bag?

You don't know the bag belongs to the women if I hadn't stated it .

Example : A man runs ahead of a women with the womens bag in his hand

I didn't say with a womens bag in his hand , I implied it was the womens bag by using the words ''with the womens bag''.

From my words you could deduct I had observed previous events of how the womens bag ended up in the mans hand . You arrived late in your observation so only witnessed the man with the womens bag running ahead .

It is obviously my example so I already know all the information of the observation , my own NRF creating the scenario .

I recall the example I give from a short college experience , social studies . We discussed stereotypical versus diverse thinking .

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You don't know the bag belongs to the women if I hadn't stated it .

Example : A man runs ahead of a women with the womens bag in his hand

I didn't say with a womens bag in his hand , I implied it was the womens bag by using the words ''with the womens bag''.

From my words you could deduct I had observed previous events of how the womens bag ended up in the mans hand . You arrived late in your observation so only witnessed the man with the womens bag running ahead .

It is obviously my example so I already know all the information of the observation , my own NRF creating the scenario .

I recall the example I give from a short college experience , social studies . We discussed stereotypical versus diverse thinking .

No, you could be mistaken and it was actually the man's bag.

 

[zerogain]

No, you could be mistaken and it was actually the man's bag.

I can't be mistaken because I created the scenario . I already said it was the womens bag .

The first principle of evidence should always be in determining if the evidence is relative to the subject or the evidence has another meaning(s) . One should never automatically assume that the alledged evidence proves something to be true because evidence can be viewed in different contexts by the observer.

Your NRF observes the bag could be the mans bag but that is because your NRF wasn't observing prequel events that lead up to the man having the bag.

Ten minutes earlier the women had bought the bag brand new from a shop and when she left the shop she realised the bag was the wrong colour . So like a true gentlemen the man ran back to the shop to exchange the bag before they closed with only minutes to spare .

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can't be mistaken because I created the scenario . I already said it was the womens bag .

The first principle of evidence should always be in determining if the evidence is relative to the subject or the evidence has another meaning(s) . One should never automatically assume that the alledged evidence proves something to be true because evidence can be viewed in different contexts by the observer.

Your NRF observes the bag could be the mans bag but that is because your NRF wasn't observing prequel events that lead up to the man having the bag.

Ten minutes earlier the women had bought the bag brand new from a shop and when she left the shop she realised the bag was the wrong colour . So like a true gentlemen the man ran back to the shop to exchange the bag before they closed with only minutes to spare .

So you made an example that suits you. But that example is not all of the world.

 

[Windwalker]

The observable facts are that the man has the womens bag , the observable facts of why the man has the bag is subjective .

This is correct, but that observation may be wrong. He has a bag, and not necessarily the woman's bag. That would be a subjective interpretation that he has that woman's bag, unless they saw him directly take it from her. So assumptions about a thing do find their way into what one observes.

This is true of all of reality. Everything we observe is filtered through the lenses of reality that we all wear, conditioned and programmed by culture and language. No one sees reality directly.

There is no such thing as an unmediated, unfiltered observation. So what we then attempt to interpret subjectively what we observe, we need to be aware that it has already been tainted or colorized by the subjective filters conditioned into each and every observer.

So it is all subjective to its core, even when it is objectively understood by more than one observer. If they share the same cultural conditioning, they are seeing the same colorized reality, and not reality itself unmediated. That conditioning is what allows or disallows information to be seen or observed.

 

[zerogain]

" that is self evidently true "

Yes, G-d is self Evident, please. Right? True?

Regards

God isn't self evident but there are self evident things that require the existence of a diety . If you were to beleive Darwins evolution then that wouldn't be self evident . The theory of evolution isn't an axiom and has no axiom properties .

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is correct, but that observation may be wrong. He has a bag, and not necessarily the woman's bag. That would be a subjective interpretation that he has that woman's bag, unless they saw him directly take it from her. So assumptions about a thing do find their way into what one observes.

This is true of all of reality. Everything we observe is filtered through the lens of reality that we all wear, conditioned and programmed by culture and language.

There is no such thing as an unmediated, unfiltered observation. So what we then attempt to interpret subjectively has already been tainted or colorized by the subjective filters conditioned into each and every observer.

Not me. I am The Truth and The Logic.

 

[zerogain]

So you made an example that suits you. But that example is not all of the world.

It is not an example that suits me , it is the NRF's dependency on timing , being in the same reference frame at the same time as the observation . Unfortunately we can't see through walls and all neurological observations must be within the line of sight and not obstructed by opaque matter .

 

[Windwalker]

God isn't self evident but there are self evident things that require the existence of a diety .

An example of this would be what?

 

[zerogain]

An example of this would be what?

Sentient beings !

It is self evident that sentient beings are not the same as a rock or the stars . The intelligent design and complex form of sentients , self evident that sentients aren't formed the same as a rock or a star .

 

[Windwalker]

Sentient beings !

It is self evident that sentient beings are not the same as a rock or the stars . The intelligent design and complex form of sentients , self evident that sentients aren't formed the same as a rock or a star .

Isn't sentience, just another level of complexity? But let's be clear about something, sentient beings are made of the stuff from stars. That is scientifically factual. Our bodies are made of the elements that were born in the hearts of exploding stars. So certainly our bodies are in fact "the same as" rocks, on that level. Just a different more complex form. Rocks on two legs that walk and talk, you could say.

The human body is approximately 99% comprised of just six elements: Oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, calcium, and phosphorus. Another five elements make up about 0.85% of the remaining mass: sulfur, potassium, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium. All of these 11 elements are essential elements.

What Chemical Elements are Found in the Human Body?.​

All of these elements came from exploding stars, which formed into planets, which formed into us. Do you disagree with this? Do you think that the elements of our bodies are made of came from somewhere else? Where would that be then?

 

[Secret Chief]

Any branch of knowledge

Religion...?