God?

Originally posted by doodinthemood
You started off with a truth, but then extrapolated rather wildly.

Logic does not = Knowledge. A person with very little logical capabilities can come to have the same amount of knowledge as a person with greater logical capabilities. That logical deduction is imperfect does not undermine any form of unalterable analysis of evidence.

This is where I disagree 100%. Logic is merely a tool for ascertaining what the truth about something is. You may know some random facts, however, putting these facts together to form is a necessity and this requires logic. For example, two people are given the formula E=mc2. One is able to logically apply the formula and the other is not. Therefore, one is able to discover a greater knowledge using this formula while the other is dependent upon telling him the answers when collecting information. I suppose if one were to be dependent upon another for information then one has no need for logic to gather information. Then again, this is why I have faith in my God. I realize the limitations of my logical abilities in regards to processing information and logically sorting it all out.

Originally posted by doodinthemood
Interesting question. I count experience as unquantified feelings that have not been subject to external observation.

Ah. I understand. I use the term more broadly. I’m assuming that by “observation” you are (at least potentially) including all the senses.

Originally posted by whodey
This is where I disagree 100%. Logic is merely a tool for ascertaining what the truth about something is. You may know some random facts, however, putting these facts together to form is a necessity and this requires logic. For example, two people are given the formula E=mc2. One is able to logically apply the formula and the other is not. Therefore, one ...[text shortened]... s of my logical abilities in regards to processing information and logically sorting it all out.

I was referring to opinions. If you are presented with evidence on something and counter evidence one something, then the more logical you are, the more likely you are to correctly identify the burden of evidence, and thus probably the truth.

Originally posted by doodinthemood
I was referring to opinions. If you are presented with evidence on something and counter evidence one something, then the more logical you are, the more likely you are to correctly identify the burden of evidence, and thus probably the truth.

Does the "burden of evidence", (whatever you consider that to be), always reveal the truth?

Obviously not. But as evidence is commutative, it's shown to always do so at some point.

Say I have some scraps of evidence for something:
Birds mate just outside their nests.

I have little evidence - I've seen birds outside their nest, I've seen baby birds.

Here, there's a very small burden of evidence, and the logical conclusion is that they do mate outside their nests (incorrect)

Few years later:

I know have evidence - Pictures of birds mating inside their nests, studies of birds observed mating inside their nests.

There's now a considerably bigger burden of evidence against the theory, and so logically one would decide against it.

The new burden is also much greater than the old one, so it's safe to say the new hypothesis is true.