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 10 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 181
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    28
    Post Thanks / Like

    Why have faith, when we can use logic?

    We like to say that we create our offspring, but do we really? Don’t we just supply the material; and the conditions need to be right in order for creation to occur, we don’t really create them, do we?

    If a tree bears fruit and a piece of fruit falls to the ground and is subsequently eaten by an animal, and this animal eventually defecates and the seeds survive, the chances of a new tree springing to life is high. What created the fruit tree? Was it created based on the conditions or does it owe it's existence to the animal?

    From within the universe we can observe new stars forming all the time, and we don’t yet understand the mechanisms that are involved when a new star forms, but we do know that there needs to be a certain amount of gas and material present in order for star formation to occur, there doesn’t appear to be a “creator” involved. Is a creator necessary?

    Creationist like to point to the idea that the universe was designed with the intent for life to occur, but yet, when we look out into the universe there doesn’t appear to be a lot of prospects for planets that are habitable to life. To me this would support the idea that the universe wasn’t designed with the intent of life to exist, but that our planet is a result of randomness and conditions that were right for life to occur.

    Time is a measuring tool; we will never be able to say “what was” in the extremely distant past, no more so than we can say “what we were” before we existed.

    We are asked to have faith that what religions profess is true. Often believers ignore details that they wouldn’t ignore otherwise, why is this? I contend that believers are conditioned to believe by others, influenced by those that they trust the most and are afraid to disappoint, to the point that they will supplant logic with faith.

    Every religion has had it’s time for people to accept and worship it. We are now in a time of enlightenment and information; why have faith, when we can use logic? Has the time finally arrived when religions of old will give way to a new way of thinking and understanding? What consequences would we encounter if we allowed old beliefs to drift away with the passage of time? Just like everything else, religions and faith have a beginning and an end.

  2. Thanks Dionysus thanked for this post
    Likes pladecalvo liked this post
  3. #2
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why have faith, when we can use logic?

    I think it might be useful to understand what is meant by "faith" in this case. For example, have you personally used tools of observation to determine that the earth indeed rotates around the sun, or do you take it on the word of scientists that it does? Have you taken numerous samples of rock from different layers of the earth's crust and tested those samples to determine its age, or do you take the word of scientists concerning the age of the earth?

  4. Likes theophilus liked this post
  5. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why have faith, when we can use logic?

    Good post Axiom.

    I could never understand how Creationists can argue that the universe is 'intelligently designed. Why would an allegedly omnimax deity make such an imperfect universe, with galaxies colliding, stars burning out, black holes, weakening magnetic fields, asteroids, planets colliding and being destroyed continuously. This is not the perfect universe one would expect from such an all powerful being.

    ---------- Post added at 09:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I think it might be useful to understand what is meant by "faith" in this case. For example, have you personally used tools of observation to determine that the earth indeed rotates around the sun, or do you take it on the word of scientists that it does? Have you taken numerous samples of rock from different layers of the earth's crust and tested those samples to determine its age, or do you take the word of scientists concerning the age of the earth?
    Whilst most laymen will rely on the word of scientists, it's not 'faith' is it. Faith is the belief that something is true when there is no evidence to support that it is or even when there is evidence to prove that it isn't. When we accept the word of science that the Earth orbits the Sun, that is not based on no or contrary evidence. It has evidence to support it and can be proven to be true. I don't need to fly an aeroplane to accept that aeroplanes fly.
    Jesus is unbelievable!

  6. #4
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why have faith, when we can use logic?

    Quote Originally Posted by pladecalvo View Post
    Why would an allegedly omnimax deity make such an imperfect universe, with galaxies colliding, stars burning out, black holes, weakening magnetic fields, asteroids, planets colliding and being destroyed continuously. This is not the perfect universe one would expect from such an all powerful being.
    I don't see why that is the case. "Perfect" is always dependent on what the goal is. If one achieves his goal in the best possible manner, then he did something perfectly. So unless colliding galaxies, etc. are contrary to Gods goals, then such things being present cannot be shown to be contrary to a "perfect" creator.

    I am not defending creationism. I think we have no actual scientific evidence that the universe was intelligently created so such a notion, while possibly correct, is not scientifically valid and therefore should not be taught as science. But then I see no evidence showing that the universe was not created by an intelligence either and likewise such a notion is not being taught as science. Like many questions about the universe, we don't have an answer to that question. So likewise it takes faith to believe either proposition. So again, agnosticism seems to make the most sense. There's nothing wrong with "I don't know" in the face of unanswerable questions.

  7. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
    Likes theophilus liked this post
  8. #5
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why have faith, when we can use logic?

    Quote Originally Posted by pladecalvo View Post
    Whilst most laymen will rely on the word of scientists, it's not 'faith' is it. Faith is the belief that something is true when there is no evidence to support that it is or even when there is evidence to prove that it isn't. When we accept the word of science that the Earth orbits the Sun, that is not based on no or contrary evidence. It has evidence to support it and can be proven to be true. I don't need to fly an aeroplane to accept that aeroplanes fly.
    Yes, I agree that 'believing' in the veracity of a given method is very different than, say, believing that the earth really is 6,000 years old (or some other such nonsense). I asked in case the opening poster is unfamiliar with the distinction, and to start the dialog about what it means to believe a thing vs what it means to accept a thing. I'm pretty careful about the distinction myself (or I try to be).

  9. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why have faith, when we can use logic?

    > Why have faith, when we can use logic?

    Because:

    1. faith is more easily manipulable and the faithful even more so
    2. it is easier to extend one's power base via a common belief in something than having to do all the work to 'prove it'
    3. it's a short-cut
    4. new claims can be derived purely from existing faith
    5. you cannot dismiss logically something that is taken on faith - faith lasts despite logic and reason.

  10. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,937
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why have faith, when we can use logic?

    Quote Originally Posted by pladecalvo View Post
    Faith is the belief that something is true when there is no evidence to support that it is or even when there is evidence to prove that it isn't.
    Hasty Generalization fallacy. This is one definition of faith. It is not the only one, has not been established as the op's definition, and cannot be assumed to apply to the faith of all creationists.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  11. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    610
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why have faith, when we can use logic?

    Quote Originally Posted by AXIOM View Post
    From within the universe we can observe new stars forming all the time, and we don’t yet understand the mechanisms that are involved when a new star forms, but we do know that there needs to be a certain amount of gas and material present in order for star formation to occur, there doesn’t appear to be a “creator” involved. Is a creator necessary?
    Are you sure we see new stars forming? Scientists have developed theories as to how new stars form and astronomers may have found places in the universe where the process of star formation seems to be going on but we have only recently developed the technology to make these observations so we haven't observed long enough to know if that is what is going on.

    Creationist like to point to the idea that the universe was designed with the intent for life to occur, but yet, when we look out into the universe there doesn’t appear to be a lot of prospects for planets that are habitable to life. To me this would support the idea that the universe wasn’t designed with the intent of life to exist, but that our planet is a result of randomness and conditions that were right for life to occur.
    Just which creationists make this assertion? This believe isn't found in the Bible. Psalm 115:16 says, "The heavens are the LORD's heavens, but the earth he has given to the children of man." The earth is the only part of the universe that was created for humans and it is possible that God intentionally made the rest of the universe unsuitable for us to guarantee that we stay here.

    The rest of the universe seems unsuitable for the kind of life found on earth but that doesn't mean there is no life there. God can create life for any kind of environment if he chooses to do so.

    Every form of logic begins with premisses that are assumed to be true. These premisses are the foundation of logic and therefore can't be proved true by logic. There must be an act of faith by which you believe certain things to be true before you can even begin using logic. The acceptance of these premisses requires and act of faith of some kind.
    The brutal, soul-shaking truth is that we are so earthly minded we are of no heavenly use.
    Leonard Ravenhill

    Blog

  12. Likes evensaul liked this post
  13. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why have faith, when we can use logic?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    This is one definition of faith. It is not the only one...
    Yes you're right, it isn't the only one. Faith is the last refuge of those that have had their arguments defeated by reason on logic; it's the mechanism theists use when the evidence tells them what they don't want to be true; it's the practice of ignoring the supportable in favour of a desired belief; it's the a-priori assumption that one's particular brand of religion is true and all the others are based on misunderstandings; faith is nothing more than refusing to recognize logic and evidence when it tells you something you'd rather not believe. Faith is nothing but a way to lie to oneself when the evidence refuses to say what one want it to say.
    Jesus is unbelievable!

  14. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,937
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why have faith, when we can use logic?

    Quote Originally Posted by pladecalvo View Post
    Yes you're right... when the evidence refuses to say what one want it to say.
    Another juvenile rant against people with religion, carrying no debate value whatsoever. That seems to be your SOP, which means we can start to assume your future posts are more of the same, and just skip them. You've got a good mind, I'm sure. It's a shame you're unwilling to use it in actual debate.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  15. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    7
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why have faith, when we can use logic?

    As a first post...the OP asks why have faith when we can use logic.
    So we must assume that the faith he is referring to (if we accept that there are many types of faiths) is one that rejects logic or allows the one to accept something in spite of it being illogical.
    As it is in a religion section then it may be fair to comment that religion can be that type of ' faith' .
    So maybe 'Faith is the belief that something is true when there is no evidence to support that it is or even when there is evidence to prove that it isn't'
    actually doers refer to the 'faith' proposed in the OP.

  16. #12
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why have faith, when we can use logic?

    Quote Originally Posted by AXIOM View Post
    Why have faith, when we can use logic?
    Can we really have one without the other? The laws of logic are not material but are transcendent in that they do not depend on the universe to operate and they only exist in our mind. Logic is based upon universal truth statements—which we call the laws of logic. These laws do not require properties of the universe to be valid. So, in one way a person who claims to have no faith, actually has faith and is using something that is transcendent in nature. The non-believer may not call the transcendent nature of logic an aspect of the Divine, and that’s his choice.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  17. Likes theophilus liked this post
  18. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    7
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why have faith, when we can use logic?

    Religious faith ,especially Christian religious faith , is making conclusions about reality based on unproven and uncorroborated claims from two thousand years ago and beyond.
    This basis of 'faith' is based on intuition and epiphany not rationality or reasoning.The core of this ' window to reality' is frozen in bronze age mythology.

    Science is based on empirical evidence and theories/ hypothesis that merely seek to explain/ understand natural laws until a better explanation and superior theory/ hypothesis is found.

    I suppose it depends on where you want to build your ' spiritual house'. Either on frozen dogma that will never change but will slowly morph into a more palatable dogma when it becomes unsupportable or disproven, supported by only by ' feelings' or fear .

    Or assertions that are based on what can be seen or calculated.Does not require mental slavery or guilt to support it and can be used to enrich our lives in this world. Not promises for the next.

    Do we really need to have ' faith' in quantum theory to use our Iphones ?

  19. Likes pladecalvo liked this post
  20. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    28
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why have faith, when we can use logic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I think it might be useful to understand what is meant by "faith" in this case. For example, have you personally used tools of observation to determine that the earth indeed rotates around the sun, or do you take it on the word of scientists that it does? Have you taken numerous samples of rock from different layers of the earth's crust and tested those samples to determine its age, or do you take the word of scientists concerning the age of the earth?
    While I'm not an expert in any one field, I do consider myself an excellent philosopher first, an astronomer second, a geologist third and a anthropologist fourth. I have analyzed our celestial sphere long enough to understand that we do indeed revolve around the sun, faith is not required, but I believe there is enough evidence to support this notion. I have had the luxury of spending time with colleagues that have tested the age of rocks and have had the privilege of witnessing firsthand the process of the procedure, I understand that there is a degree of error in this method, nevertheless, it is easy to accept that the Earth is much older than we can comprehend.

    Faith, as it relates to a religion is something different. We are asked to believe something that we can not test or measure, and if we use the source of the belief, it fails every single time. Insert reasoning; because we are influenced to have faith in something that we cannot test or measure, we create a reason why it isn't so, and the biggest reason as to why, is because it isn't God's will. If I use logic to explain that which is unexplainable, I would have to except that it is unexplainable until something presents itself to provide an explanation, this is called evidence. If we don't have evidence, but yet we want to believe that it is true, we have to have faith that it is true. And if we have faith in something that continuously isn't fulfilled, we have deception. Most believers will ignore this and say that it isn't God's will, why is this?

    ---------- Post added January 17th, 2015 at 12:26 AM ---------- Previous post was January 16th, 2015 at 11:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by theophilus View Post
    Are you sure we see new stars forming? Scientists have developed theories as to how new stars form and astronomers may have found places in the universe where the process of star formation seems to be going on but we have only recently developed the technology to make these observations so we haven't observed long enough to know if that is what is going on.
    Are you going to deny that new stars are forming in the universe?


    Quote Originally Posted by theophilus
    Just which creationists make this assertion? This believe isn't found in the Bible. Psalm 115:16 says, "The heavens are the LORD's heavens, but the earth he has given to the children of man." The earth is the only part of the universe that was created for humans and it is possible that God intentionally made the rest of the universe unsuitable for us to guarantee that we stay here.

    The rest of the universe seems unsuitable for the kind of life found on earth but that doesn't mean there is no life there. God can create life for any kind of environment if he chooses to do so.

    Every form of logic begins with premisses that are assumed to be true. These premisses are the foundation of logic and therefore can't be proved true by logic. There must be an act of faith by which you believe certain things to be true before you can even begin using logic. The acceptance of these premisses requires and act of faith of some kind.
    Are you saying that there is no other life in the universe? I would argue that there is, but it is rare and only occurs when the conditions are right.

    Using logic as a premise to the creation of the universe will unfortunately end in the question of who created the creator; my question is, is a creator necessary or is life a result of a condition? If you believe that there is a creator than you will insert your reason as to why you believe this. Are you using faith or evidence to support your claim?

    ---------- Post added at 12:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Can we really have one without the other? The laws of logic are not material but are transcendent in that they do not depend on the universe to operate and they only exist in our mind. Logic is based upon universal truth statements—which we call the laws of logic. These laws do not require properties of the universe to be valid. So, in one way a person who claims to have no faith, actually has faith and is using something that is transcendent in nature. The non-believer may not call the transcendent nature of logic an aspect of the Divine, and that’s his choice.
    You can, as long as you are using logic as a premise for evidence. Faith as it relates to a religion doesn't require evidence, so there is no need for logic because the reason for believing is faith.

  21. Likes pladecalvo liked this post
  22. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    110
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why have faith, when we can use logic?

    Quote Originally Posted by AXIOM View Post
    We like to say that we create our offspring, but do we really? Don’t we just supply the material; and the conditions need to be right in order for creation to occur, we don’t really create them, do we?

    If a tree bears fruit and a piece of fruit falls to the ground and is subsequently eaten by an animal, and this animal eventually defecates and the seeds survive, the chances of a new tree springing to life is high. What created the fruit tree? Was it created based on the conditions or does it owe it's existence to the animal?

    From within the universe we can observe new stars forming all the time, and we don’t yet understand the mechanisms that are involved when a new star forms, but we do know that there needs to be a certain amount of gas and material present in order for star formation to occur, there doesn’t appear to be a “creator” involved. Is a creator necessary?


    Creationist like to point to the idea that the universe was designed with the intent for life to occur, but yet, when we look out into the universe there doesn’t appear to be a lot of prospects for planets that are habitable to life. To me this would support the idea that the universe wasn’t designed with the intent of life to exist, but that our planet is a result of randomness and conditions that were right for life to occur.

    Time is a measuring tool; we will never be able to say “what was” in the extremely distant past, no more so than we can say “what we were” before we existed.

    We are asked to have faith that what religions profess is true. Often believers ignore details that they wouldn’t ignore otherwise, why is this? I contend that believers are conditioned to believe by others, influenced by those that they trust the most and are afraid to disappoint, to the point that they will supplant logic with faith.

    Every religion has had it’s time for people to accept and worship it. We are now in a time of enlightenment and information; why have faith, when we can use logic? Has the time finally arrived when religions of old will give way to a new way of thinking and understanding? What consequences would we encounter if we allowed old beliefs to drift away with the passage of time? Just like everything else, religions and faith have a beginning and an end.
    Animals cannot understand any of this. You can understand that all of your faith in logic keeps you marching in step with death, and is finalized in death. You are claiming to have faith in logic as your exuse for living when you are only dying. Tick tock, tick tock, death is coming, stomp on the clock.

    Your religion of faith in logic is taking you down in death as proof that your logic is futile. Your religion is no better than anbody elses religion, it can't get you out of death. Saying death is a beautiful thing by which the molecules of your body move around in life's varying forms is logical? Really? So when somebody you love is laying in their coffin, you look at them and say death is beautiful? Have you ever killed anybody? Are you planning on killing some people? What about yourself? Are you going to euthanize yourself? Isn't that where your logic is taking you, trying to euthanize yourself slowly?

    ---------- Post added at 12:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by pladecalvo View Post
    Yes you're right, it isn't the only one. Faith is the last refuge of those that have had their arguments defeated by reason on logic; it's the mechanism theists use when the evidence tells them what they don't want to be true; it's the practice of ignoring the supportable in favour of a desired belief; it's the a-priori assumption that one's particular brand of religion is true and all the others are based on misunderstandings; faith is nothing more than refusing to recognize logic and evidence when it tells you something you'd rather not believe. Faith is nothing but a way to lie to oneself when the evidence refuses to say what one want it to say.
    You don't want to believe Jesus because you are afraid of the changes He will make in your life. You love the pleasures of your self-preferences more than you love life, so that's all you will have as you are rejecting God's love. That's on you. Quit trying to put it on other people.

    Why do people who talk like you talk sound so miserable, angry, and unhappy? Delaring your hatred of God won't make you feel better, why do you keep doing it?

    What happened to you or failed to happen for you so that you have grown to hate God this way? What's your story? Where have you been, what have you done, what happened to you, what did you miss out on? Do you feel you have been cheated? Do you feel life has shortchanged you? Do you wish you were somebody else? Do you want to be God and be your own boss forever so you can have everything you want and do everyting you want to do? Athiests and agnostics sound like broken records when they spew their hatred against God. Is that what you want to be, a broken record? You are doing a pretty good job of it in the way you are talking.

  23. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    28
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why have faith, when we can use logic?

    [QUOTE=GodIsGood;544193]Animals cannot understand any of this. You can understand that all of your faith in logic keeps you marching in step with death, and is finalized in death. You are claiming to have faith in logic as your exuse for living when you are only dying. Tick tock, tick tock, death is coming, stomp on the clock.

    Your religion of faith in logic is taking you down in death as proof that your logic is futile. Your religion is no better than anbody elses religion, it can't get you out of death. Saying death is a beautiful thing by which the molecules of your body move around in life's varying forms is logical? Really? So when somebody you love is laying in their coffin, you look at them and say death is beautiful? Have you ever killed anybody? Are you planning on killing some people? What about yourself? Are you going to euthanize yourself? Isn't that where your logic is taking you, trying to euthanize yourself slowly?[COLOR="Silver"]

    You understood it, correct? Then animals can understand it. Logic isn't a belief, inasmuch as it is a reason. Faith asks us to believe without evidence, logic uses the evidence and that's why we believe. If it was simple we wouldn't be having this debate.

    All things must end, but yet we are told that God is eternal, and this is based on faith, as know one can truly have the answer. Logic would state that once we die, we're dead. All of our experiences cease to exist within our mind. Faith says we continue on just as we were in a nirvana. Which is more likely? This question isn't which one you want more, the question is which is true? From all the information that we have on this subject, logic would be the more likely of the two. Why can't we accept the end and just leave it at that?

  24. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why have faith, when we can use logic?

    Quote Originally Posted by AXIOM
    Faith asks us to believe without evidence, logic uses the evidence and that's why we believe.


    Can you support this, please? How does logic use evidence? What sort of evidence is there for "p & (p->q) -> q"?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  25. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    28
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why have faith, when we can use logic?

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post


    Can you support this, please? How does logic use evidence? What sort of evidence is there for "p & (p->q) -> q"?
    If something is illogical, it's accepted as false. If something is true, it's always true, if something is false, it's always false. For something to be logical, there must be evidence that it is true.

    If you say God created the universe, and I say where is the evidence, logically we would have to accept your assertion as false, as there is no evidence to support your claim.

    If I say the universe exists, and you say how do I know this, the evidence is that you and I are here, so logically it would be true.

    Which is more likely?

  26. #19
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why have faith, when we can use logic?

    Quote Originally Posted by AXIOM View Post
    All things must end, but yet we are told that God is eternal, and this is based on faith, as know one can truly have the answer.
    God, by definition, is eternal so God being eternal is not a matter of faith. IF God exists, God is eternal.

    What is not known is if God exists. To hold that God does, for a fact, exist requires faith for there is no evidence that God exists. And to hold that God does not, for a fact, does not exist requires faith for there is no evidence that God does not exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by AXIOM View Post
    Logic would state that once we die, we're dead.
    Actually, that's just definition. Since "die" and "dead" are the same concept, the are the same.


    Quote Originally Posted by AXIOM View Post
    All of our experiences cease to exist within our mind.
    That depends on whether our minds continue on in another form after our bodies cease to die.

    Quote Originally Posted by AXIOM View Post
    Faith says we continue on just as we were in a nirvana.
    And faith says that our consciousnesses wink out of existence upon our physical death as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by AXIOM View Post
    Which is more likely? This question isn't which one you want more, the question is which is true? From all the information that we have on this subject, logic would be the more likely of the two. Why can't we accept the end and just leave it at that?
    I think a better question is why can't you accept that we really don't know what happens to our minds after we die?

    When the evidence does not show that one of two contrary positions are provably correct, the logical evidence-based position is that we don't know which one is correct.

    ---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by AXIOM View Post
    If you say God created the universe, and I say where is the evidence, logically we would have to accept your assertion as false, as there is no evidence to support your claim.
    No, the assertion is UNPROVEN. It is NOT proven false.

    I mean I said there's a quarter in my pocket and don't show you the contents of my pockets then there is no evidence that there's a quarter in my pocket. But that doe not prove that the my claim is false for there could be a quarter in my pocket even though I've provided no evidence that there is.

  27. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why have faith, when we can use logic?

    Quote Originally Posted by AXIOM View Post
    If something is illogical, it's accepted as false.
    I'm not sure what you mean. Take the following argument:

    (i) p
    (ii) p -> q
    (iii) Therefore, ~q.

    This argument is invalid (i.e., it's possible for (i) and (ii) to be true but the conclusion in (iii) to be false).

    So we reject the argument as false. But arguments aren't true or false; propositions are. Arguments are convincing or unconvincing, persuasive or unpersuasive, valid or invalid, strong or not strong, etc.

    Consider the following invalid argument:

    If Barack Obama is president, then 2+2=5.
    Barack Obama is president.
    Therefore, 2+2 != 4

    Even though it's an invalid argument, we would be foolish to conclude that its conclusion (or its premises) are therefore false.

    If something is true, it's always true, if something is false, it's always false.
    "It's currently raining", if true, is always true? That seems wrong.

    For something to be logical, there must be evidence that it is true.
    What evidence is there for the axioms of S5?

    Without any evidence whatsoever about what clothes you're wearing, I can say that if you're wearing shorts, then you're wearing shorts. What evidence would you look at to determine whether the statement "If you're wearing shorts, then you're wearing shorts" is true?

    If you say God created the universe, and I say where is the evidence, logically we would have to accept your assertion as false, as there is no evidence to support your claim.
    Please provide this deduction. Hint: you can't, because you're relying on implicit assumptions with regard to epistemology and justification.

    If I say the universe exists, and you say how do I know this, the evidence is that you and I are here, so logically it would be true.
    Logical truths are like this:

    "p -> ((p -> q) ->q)"

    "You and I are here" isn't a logical truth. Whatever may be reasonably deduced from this sentence depends on one's theory of justification (i.e., the system that describes how and why certain inferences are permissible).

    But there's no strictly logical reason to prefer one consistent theory of justification to another.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  28. Likes Lukecash12 liked this post
 

 
Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What is Logic? (Logic 101)
    By Apokalupsis in forum General Debate
    Replies: 141
    Last Post: May 26th, 2015, 06:40 AM
  2. Conventional Logic vs Religious Logic
    By daman in forum Jokes and Humor
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 10th, 2008, 07:18 AM
  3. The Logic of God
    By Meng Bomin in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: March 23rd, 2006, 03:35 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
  •