Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 40
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    city of champions
    Posts
    30
    Post Thanks / Like

    If a man existed and was bound purely by logic.

    So, this may be a religious forum discussion, but I chose to write it here because it it a hypothetical:


    Suppose there is a person who has no emotions and operates purely by perfect logic. Given the history of mankind, all available texts, and the limits of our present science, could such a person ever believe there is a God (or that a particular faith is correct)? More so, if you tend to say that a man of perfect logic could not believe in a divine entity, how does one justify their own belief in such a being?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    123 sesame street
    Posts
    23
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If a man existed and was bound purely by logic.

    I don't think a person like that would have a religion/belief in evolution.
    both are unproven and do not support enough facts. A man of pure logic with no emotion could justify almost everything example: a completely logical man realizes the earth is going to become overpopulated he gos on a killing rampage and makes the us think it's under nuclear attack.

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Venus
    Posts
    3,908
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If a man existed and was bound purely by logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by I andrew View Post
    I don't think a person like that would have a religion/belief in evolution.
    both are unproven and do not support enough facts. A man of pure logic with no emotion could justify almost everything example: a completely logical man realizes the earth is going to become overpopulated he gos on a killing rampage and makes the us think it's under nuclear attack.
    And this is a pure illogical answer to the question.

    Please go and re-read the OP again, and try and put more logic into your own thought process.

    I strongly believe that someone with logic and no emotion will rather believe in evolution than in a God.
    >>]Aspoestertjie[<<

    ODN Rules

    Join our Facebook Page here!

  4. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    city of champions
    Posts
    30
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If a man existed and was bound purely by logic.

    To I Andrew: I honestly don't even know where to start.

    I am only going to do this once, because I am not generally in the habit of tossing bones at the monsters who lurk under the bridges of the internet:

    Andrew, exactly how would it be logical for a man to go on a "killing rampage" simply because he knew the world would end at sometime in the future? The statement "Since the world is going to end...I am going on a killing rampage" is not logical. DUCY (do you see why)?

  5. #5
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If a man existed and was bound purely by logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHOOT
    Suppose there is a person who has no emotions and operates purely by perfect logic. Given the history of mankind, all available texts, and the limits of our present science, could such a person ever believe there is a God (or that a particular faith is correct)? More so, if you tend to say that a man of perfect logic could not believe in a divine entity, how does one justify their own belief in such a being?
    I doubt such a person would take the leap of faith that is required in assuming the world which he perceives is an accurate representation of "reality".

    I would guess such a man would sit in meditation for his whole life, eventually dying of starvation.


    If however, you would suppose that such a man would make that leap of faith, then it becomes completely logical and possible for him to take others.
    To serve man.

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    1,961
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If a man existed and was bound purely by logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by shootwillus View Post
    So, this may be a religious forum discussion, but I chose to write it here because it it a hypothetical:

    Suppose there is a person who has no emotions and operates purely by perfect logic. Given the history of mankind, all available texts, and the limits of our present science, could such a person ever believe there is a God (or that a particular faith is correct)?
    No. I do not see how a person could be anything less than an agnostic and come to the conclusion that God might exist, but there is no evidence to justify his existence.

  7. #7
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    city of champions
    Posts
    30
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If a man existed and was bound purely by logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I doubt such a person would take the leap of faith that is required in assuming the world which he perceives is an accurate representation of "reality".

    I would guess such a man would sit in meditation for his whole life, eventually dying of starvation.


    If however, you would suppose that such a man would make that leap of faith, then it becomes completely logical and possible for him to take others.

    The man would not starve to death as eating is a logical response to hunger. Remember that this is a man, not a robot.

    I do not see accepting reality as a proposition unsupported by logic.

    This man exists in the world. (as per hypothetical)
    The world in which he exists is our common reality. (as per hypothetical)
    The above mentioned world is reality.
    This man interacts with reality in a manner which is consistent (in accordance with the principles of science)
    Predictable events remain predictable not only to the man but also with respect to the history of humanity which he has access to.

    Though the man cannot say with 100% certainty that the world he lives in is reality...he does not need "faith" to make that assumption. It is the same level of assumption that is required to predict with (so far 100% certainty) the behavior of the physical world, given the limits of our knowledge.

    We do not fly planes or man submarines on "faith". That is the wrong word. Yes, it is an assumption that these vehicles will continue to operate....but that assumption is based on the evidence of countless experiments conducted constantly by humans since the beginning of our collective memory.

    The odd thing is that only "faith" can give 100% certainty. No method of logic or science can do that. I play a lot of poker. Very often you put your money into the pot with a great statistical advantage. Say, you are a 9-1 favorite against your opponent. Given the rules of the game, it is always 100% logical to get your money in the middle. The thing is, you don't have to play poker.

    You do have to play life...and in life, unlike poker, options are not finite. So, in essence the purely logical man, acting in reality, and dealing with the possibility of the infinite is going to have to use logic to separate more likely from less likely options. Thus he makes assumptions...but these are scientific assumptions (like gravity) not acts of faith.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Linton
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If a man existed and was bound purely by logic.

    first just watch a few Star Trek episodes and you will know all you want about someone who lives by pure logic

    second this is for our friend from south Korea you say there is no proof of God the first thing i would like to talk about is the great flood you know the story right the people were wicked god made it rain for forty days and so on till the entire earth was flooded and moses and his family survived in all ancient recorded history you can find somehting that talks about the great flood

    my next form of facts is an old american indian story of origin that spoke of the creation and it is very similar to the bibles creation this story was handed down amoung the generations of people untill finALLy the childern no longer belived in the one almighty God but at this time before the story was all but lost then france spain and great britan went over to america and began to teach christianity to the native indians and you cant tell me that timeing was a fluke

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If a man existed and was bound purely by logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by shootwillus View Post
    So, this may be a religious forum discussion, but I chose to write it here because it it a hypothetical:


    Suppose there is a person who has no emotions and operates purely by perfect logic. Given the history of mankind, all available texts, and the limits of our present science, could such a person ever believe there is a God (or that a particular faith is correct)? More so, if you tend to say that a man of perfect logic could not believe in a divine entity, how does one justify their own belief in such a being?
    Well, he might logically come to the conclusion that there is a God. For instance, he might think that there must be a meaning behind all this suffering in the world, and that it all must be part of God's unknowable plan. Being logical doesn't mean you'll be 100% right all the time.

    I doubt such a person would take the leap of faith that is required in assuming the world which he perceives is an accurate representation of "reality".
    What? What makes you think this guy would even think that the world he perceives is NOT an accurate representation of reality? What does this have to do with his being extremely logical? Why is it that assuming the world IS an accurate representation of reality somehow automatically requires a leap of faith? Why doesn't assuming that it is not an accurate representation of reality require a similar leap of faith?

    I would guess such a man would sit in meditation for his whole life, eventually dying of starvation.
    Why? What does his being logical have to do with meditating? And even if there is somehow a connection between the two, what makes you think he'd die of starvation rather than stopping before that? How does this connect to your previous point about accurate representations of reality?

    If however, you would suppose that such a man would make that leap of faith, then it becomes completely logical and possible for him to take others.
    What kind of leap of faith? Why is it that you think that just because he takes one leap of faith that it'd be possible for him to take more? Couldn't he take one leap of faith and then never take any again for the rest of his life? Unsurprisingly, your post is vague and incomplete. Would it kill you to express yourself clearly and thoroughly?

  10. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    city of champions
    Posts
    30
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If a man existed and was bound purely by logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great Khan View Post
    Well, he might logically come to the conclusion that there is a God. For instance, he might think that there must be a meaning behind all this suffering in the world, and that it all must be part of God's unknowable plan. Being logical doesn't mean you'll be 100% right all the time.

    I believe that your assertion that logic does not necessitate correctness is accurate. This is because very often logic involves deductive reasoning. The value of logic is in considering evidence and possibilities given what we know and observe. We use this to piece things together in a rational and coherent manner or to create a new idea which adequately solves a problem (without creating new and unreasonable problems).

    So, you are supposing that this logical man may deduce from the suffering in the world that there is a divinity with a master plan. This is not logical reasoning. First of all, the logical man should be free from the emotional effects of the suffering of others. Of course, this may be nit picking your assertion....but i think its still valid (and honestly, the emotional character of religion is the elephant in this room).

    Secondly, in a world of infinite possibilities, how would this logical man deduce the existence of a divine power? Here I would direct you to the Invisible Pink Unicorn (if you are unfamiliar then google search it). The IPU is as likely a prospect for creation as is any other idea. These ideas require evidence...of which there is none suitable (to a scientific standard).

  11. #11
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If a man existed and was bound purely by logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHOOT
    I do not see accepting reality as a proposition unsupported by logic.
    You said he operated by pure perfect logic.
    I (Assumed), that that would preclude any level of faith, and would result in actions only based on 100% necessary logic.
    The idea that something is supported by logic, isn't enough. As someone pointed out, you can use logic and be wrong.

    If that is not the case of your idea of "perfect Pure logic"..
    Then I don't know what those terms are intended to portray.

    Does one who operates by "perfect and pure logic", make assumptions?
    If so how are those assumptions taken on anything other than faith?
    To serve man.

  12. #12
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    city of champions
    Posts
    30
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If a man existed and was bound purely by logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You said he operated by pure perfect logic.
    I (Assumed), that that would preclude any level of faith, and would result in actions only based on 100% necessary logic.
    The idea that something is supported by logic, isn't enough. As someone pointed out, you can use logic and be wrong.

    If that is not the case of your idea of "perfect Pure logic"..
    Then I don't know what those terms are intended to portray.

    Does one who operates by "perfect and pure logic", make assumptions?
    If so how are those assumptions taken on anything other than faith?
    Someone did point out that one can use logic correctly and still end up with a result inconsistent with reality. I agreed with this an even gave an explanation for such occurrences. Logic is a tool, not an ethos.

    However, logic leads to false conclusions under two circumstances. The first, and I described this earlier, is where all pertinent facts are not known and a correct deduction is not possible.

    Secondly, logic fails to provide correct information if the fundamental premise is not sound. We can hold a position about reality that is false but then act in a logically consistent manner with the initial falsehood.

    That being said, I am not certain that this actually has any bearing on the hypothetical question.

    Faith vs. Reasonable Assumption...I believe that I have already covered this ground. The two are not the same. Let me give an example:

    You have a box and have no idea what is inside of it. One person says "I know there is a cat in the box". You ask them how and they reply that despite not having any evidence nor any witnesses that saw the cat go into the box, they simply know that the cat is in the box. This is faith. It is the practice of "knowing" that something is true despite no evidence for a particular case other than the possibility that such a thing could occur (the box is large enough to fit a cat).

    What does the man of pure logic when asked about whats in the box? He knows just as little as anyone else about it, but definitely sees no reason to act under the assumption that there is a cat in the box. Any item in the known universe that could fit into such a space could be in the box. The man of pure logic takes no stance.


    The man of faith and the man of logic get to lift the box (they can't open it). When they lift the box the man of logic says "in my experience, there cannot possibly be a cat in this box, the box seems to weigh no more than an empty cardboard box". The man of faith does not care. His claims were never evidentially based to begin with and he still insists there is a cat in the box.

    "How can you believe there is a cat in that box now"? asks the logical man. The man of faith asks "How can there not be a cat in the box"? Talking about it both men are willing to agree the box feels the same weight. Both men agree that that weight is considerably less than the weight of a cat. The man of faith will not budge...he insists that there is a cat in the box!

    The man of logic simply does not understand. The two men argue. The man of faith, insulted, says..."hey, you are assuming just as much as I am...so, don't look at me like I am crazy!!".

    The man of faith says "You are assuming that there is really a box, that we really exist, and that you arent being controlled by demons or trapped in the Matrix"

    Ok says the man of logic. "That is interesting, and maybe you are correct. I cannot prove with 100% certainty that I exist, that you exist, or anything else for that matter. However, in the entire history of the known world there has never been a verifiable record of a weightless cat."

    The man of faith continues to rant "just because you, and perhaps no one else has ever encountered a weightless cat before doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I demand negative proof to counteract my positive claim...and you still havent answered me about your assumption that reality is real!!!"

    The man of logic pauses and says "there can be only two cases for my perception of reality. Either it is in fact the real universe which I perceive or it is not. If it is the real universe which I perceive then there can be no weightless cat in that box. If it is not the real universe which I perceive then my inspection of the box is not a source of valid information. I would be incapable of ever obtaining valid information. There could be no way of knowing anything about the box or if such a box even exists. In that regard, the possibilities in relation to the box are infinite"

    The man of logic goes on to state that "the rejection of reality leads therefore to the burden of infinite possibilities. Since we can not trust any information that our senses reveal to us, we can make no positive assertions about the universe. It is thus the most logical course of action to make no assertions what so ever and to use this very argument to strike down any positive assertions put forth."


    So, what I am saying here, in regard to my original hypothetical question is this...if the man of logic accepts reality, he can only conclude that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of a god. If the man of logic does not accept reality, he cannot accept any evidence for the existence of a god.


    (note, i didn't proof read this and I hope its coherent).
    "I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them."

  13. #13
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If a man existed and was bound purely by logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHOOT
    Faith vs. Reasonable Assumption...I believe that I have already covered this ground. The two are not the same. Let me give an example:
    I am not talking about "reasonable assumptions".. Those I assume are based on logic.
    I'm talking about first assumptions, which our logic is based on.


    Quote Originally Posted by SHOOT
    So, what I am saying here, in regard to my original hypothetical question is this...if the man of logic accepts reality, he can only conclude that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of a god. If the man of logic does not accept reality, he cannot accept any evidence for the existence of a god.
    I simply forward that he would not accept reality.
    If you were to forward that he would, then I pointed out then he could accept God, or come to that logical conclusion.

    My answer was pending a question of clarification. Which was is to say,
    You have not explained how one of pure perfect logic deals with the faith involved in first assumptions. .. As first assumptions are not based on logic, but on faith.


    If you intended "perfect" logic to mean a man that doesn't make mistakes in his logic. Such as the two ways you explain.
    Quote Originally Posted by SHOOT
    However, logic leads to false conclusions under two circumstances. The first, and I described this earlier, is where all pertinent facts are not known and a correct deduction is not possible.

    Secondly, logic fails to provide correct information if the fundamental premise is not sound. We can hold a position about reality that is false but then act in a logically consistent manner with the initial falsehood.
    Then weather a man of pure logic would believe/accept God.. Would depend on if God actually exists.
    If God exists, then he would. (as his logic is perfect, and as lack of correct knowledge = flawed logic, the man would be all knowing to the point of not having to use his logic at all, he would simply know one way or another.

    Under that condition, then our only answer is "we do not know what such a man would conclude".

    P.S. Nice story though.
    To serve man.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    14
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If a man existed and was bound purely by logic.

    One would not know if a God existed. Logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity, given the fact that the existence of a God has not been proved nor disproved, the hypothetical one bound by logic would have nothing to base the knowledge and reasoning of an existential God.

    ---------- Post added at 11:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by I andrew View Post
    I don't think a person like that would have a religion/belief in evolution.
    both are unproven and do not support enough facts. A man of pure logic with no emotion could justify almost everything example: a completely logical man realizes the earth is going to become overpopulated he gos on a killing rampage and makes the us think it's under nuclear attack.
    Not neccessarily, the hypothetical one would know that humans are the one species who are destined to destroy themselves. Logically, one would have no reason to interfere, but to serve one's time and die.

  15. #15
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If a man existed and was bound purely by logic.

    1) One could be perfectly logical, but still without knowing the truth of X. That is, one could create a logical argument about X that is not invalid, but that doesn't mean that it would be necessarily true. The agent would only be acting with the truths that he personally knows.

    2) It is possible to be perfectly logical and believe in God. Why not? God is such a being after all.

    3) Being "perfect" at logic and being void of emotion is irrelevant to the truth of God. Either God exists or He does not. One's emotions on it has no bearing on the matter.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  16. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    767
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If a man existed and was bound purely by logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by shootwillus View Post
    The man would not starve to death as eating is a logical response to hunger.
    But why is living logical?
    Udabindu yathāpi pokkhare
    Padume vāri yathā na lippati,
    Evaṃ muni no palippati
    Yadidaṃ diṭṭhasutaṃ mutesu vā.

  17. #17
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If a man existed and was bound purely by logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soren View Post
    But why is living logical?
    Why wouldn't it be? There must be a logical reason for changing "what is". "What is", is the man being alive. You are saying that to be logical he must change "what is" for some apparent logical reason. What is this logical reason that he ought to change "what is"?

    It isn't logical that he was perfectly logical all of his life...up until this particular time (of all times) that he became hungry and thus, decided to starve himself. That...would be illogical. There is no reasoning in it.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  18. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If a man existed and was bound purely by logic.

    The concept of a "perfectly logical" person with "no emotions" is inconceivable to me. Consider healthy sadness. This is not a distortion but rather a healthy acceptance of the loss of something we value. Also, if the being has a physiology that is human, it would also be "logical" to become angry and scared when threatened, so as to increase epinephrine and norepinephrine levels in the blood stream, hastening respiration and heart rate, preparing for conflict. In short, there is a problem in trying to separate "logic" from "emotion" that needs to be addressed, in my opinion.
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  19. #19
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: If a man existed and was bound purely by logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    1) One could be perfectly logical, but still without knowing the truth of X. That is, one could create a logical argument about X that is not invalid, but that doesn't mean that it would be necessarily true. The agent would only be acting with the truths that he personally knows.

    2) It is possible to be perfectly logical and believe in God. Why not? God is such a being after all.

    3) Being "perfect" at logic and being void of emotion is irrelevant to the truth of God. Either God exists or He does not. One's emotions on it has no bearing on the matter.
    The really-super-important idea here is being sort of implied but not stated, outright.

    Logic is a framework in which we assess (or attempt to assess) the consistency of ideas with given assumptions. Given assumptions. That's the key, right there. One can reach perfectly logical conclusions about the existence or non-existence of god given different assumptions. There are some assumptions which can be debated logically (i.e. ones which are selectively applied, for example), but there are some which simply cannot be debated at all. They are simply "given." It is therefore quite possible to come to a logical conclusion that god exists. Often, between atheists and theists we come down to a difference in "standards of evidence." Nothing more. Christians accept as evidence of god's existence, the testiment to the same in the bible. I reject it. Who's to say which standard of evidence is "correct?" Certainly not me.

    Let me also stress that evaluating situations and executing "perfectly logical" actions does not mean that emotions do not exist, or that they are not a factor. Assume for a second the position that emotions are helpful and aid in survival of man in the wild. Is it then logical to act on the emotion "fear?" Sure, given those assumptions, it certainly could be. If we simply assume that emotions should play no role in decision making, then acting upon those emotions would be "illogical" but having them at all in the first place would not be.

    In this way, I can't imagine that being "coldly logical" in behavior necessarily means "devoid of emotion."
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  20. #20
    iRantOften
    Guest

    Re: If a man existed and was bound purely by logic.

    Bound purely by logic. Interesting thought.

    Well, to start off, you'd have to define 'logic'. The dictionary defines it as the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. But then there's likely to be much controversy surrounding that definition. It's worded as 'science', thus implying that logic had to have been learned. But that doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't that've slowed down evolution by decades, if not centuries? That mocks the concept of instinct. What is really instinct, and what is logic?

    Anyhow, basing this answer off of the dictionary definition of logic, I suppose religion wouldn't play into it. Logic has absolutely nothing to do with morals. Morals are the foundation for any kind of religion; without them there is purely logic. A man born solely to live life by logic must only live by common sense defined solely by science. But that's not possible either, as in order to do so, science defends humanity and humanity supports the concept of opinion and insight. Every advancement made by science had to do with opinion and thought, trial and error, therefore making the hypothetical scenario impossible and redundant.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Counter-Arguments to God
    By GoldPhoenix in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 222
    Last Post: December 1st, 2009, 08:01 PM
  2. The Hubris of Atheism
    By thrashee in forum Religion
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: January 26th, 2009, 06:46 AM
  3. Why I'm an Atheist
    By Castle in forum Religion
    Replies: 259
    Last Post: August 21st, 2006, 09:48 PM
  4. The Limitations of Logic
    By Trendem in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: July 4th, 2006, 02:14 PM
  5. Replies: 116
    Last Post: June 21st, 2005, 07:29 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •