Is logic faith?

Originally posted by KellyJay
When I refer to God:
I refer to the Creator of everything, by the power of His Word all things are held together.
I refer to the Almighty One that lives forever, Who was, is, and always will be the same for He changes not.
I refer to the One that puts up, and takes down, Who gives and takes away.
I refer to the Savior of my soul.
I refer to the One tha ...[text shortened]... this is specific enough for you. My words are inadequate when it comes to describing Him.
Kelly

... but not any Intelligent Designer.
She just created it all without any design, did she...?

Originally posted by KellyJay
When I refer to God:
I refer to the Creator of everything, by the power of His Word all things are held together.
I refer to the Almighty One that lives forever, Who was, is, and always will be the same for He changes not.
I refer to the One that puts up, and takes down, Who gives and takes away.
I refer to the Savior of my soul.
I refer to the One tha ...[text shortened]... this is specific enough for you. My words are inadequate when it comes to describing Him.
Kelly

Yes, I can see why your words are inadequate. That is because your imagination is so limited.

This usage of yours for the word "God" has only itself as a referrant.

Any awareness in the world in which things happen of that which you describe -- can you provide any evidence other than words on a page or what other people have told you?

For example, has any burning shrubbery spoken to you lately?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
... but not any Intelligent Designer.
She just created it all without any design, did she...?

I think it reasonable to speculate that there may indeed be a self-aware consciousness beyond anything we probably can comprehend that brought what we call the universe into being.

and I think it also reasonable to include among the myriad of other possible speculations that the system so devised was designed to function in the way it actually does.

Which is not to say there is anything more to this idea than speculation, for we cannot know or become aware of the truth with respect to these musings.

Thus, no legal effect should follow from any one group's embrace or faith in the truth of such speculation -- the law requires that which these groups cannot provide, for it is beyond our ken.

Originally posted by Scriabin
I think it reasonable to speculate that there may indeed be a self-aware consciousness beyond anything we probably can comprehend that brought what we call the universe into being.

and I think it also reasonable to include among the myriad of other possible speculations that the system so devised was designed to function in the way it actually does.

W ...[text shortened]... eculation -- the law requires that which these groups cannot provide, for it is beyond our ken.

As long we agree that this is speculations and nothing more, and that any speculation is as much worth as anoyone's else speculation, I have no problem.

But when someone say that he has the Truth, and his Truth is the only Truth, and everyone's else Truth is wrong, then I strongly object.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Have you found out enough about fuzzy logic to find out how it deals with truth tables? I find it unlikely that you can take two half true statement and claim that the combination is fully true. I wonder if the combination can necessarily be said to be even partially true. The part that is true about "it is blue" is the very part that is false about "It i ...[text shortened]... out. Its rather like doing a bitwise "and" operation in binary were 1100 & 0011 = 0000

X & ~X is only partly true. I have never claimed otherwise. As for truth-tables, there are several versions. But I do not think that matters. In classical logic, X & ~X is always false (and, according to several people on this forum, this is a standard of coherency); in fuzzy logic, however, X & ~X can have some partial truth and it is quite natural.

Originally posted by Scriabin
Yes, I can see why your words are inadequate. That is because your imagination is so limited.

This usage of yours for the word "God" has only itself as a referrant.

Any awareness in the world in which things happen of that which you describe -- can you provide any evidence other than words on a page or what other people have told you?

For example, has any burning shrubbery spoken to you lately?

Is your intention to just insult or have a conversation?
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
As long we agree that this is speculations and nothing more, and that any speculation is as much worth as anoyone's else speculation, I have no problem.

But when someone say that he has the Truth, and his Truth is the only Truth, and everyone's else Truth is wrong, then I strongly object.

And there's the rub, is it not? Generally speaking, I'd agree with you. When G W Bush announced to the world "you are either with us or with the terrorists", it made me cringe. No human gets to nake such a blatant definition of truth for everyone. Yet as a Christiam, I have no problem with Christ saying "Those who are not with us are against us." And of course, He also said He was the Only way to salvation (paraphrased), and as rigid as that sounds, I believe it. Being a Christian, it comes with the territory.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
And there's the rub, is it not? Generally speaking, I'd agree with you. When G W Bush announced to the world "you are either with us or with the terrorists", it made me cringe. No human gets to nake such a blatant definition of truth for everyone. Yet as a Christiam, I have no problem with Christ saying "Those who are not with us are against us." And ...[text shortened]... nd as rigid as that sounds, I believe it. Being a Christian, it comes with the territory.

So all the mankind is divided of several religions, of which each of them think they have the ultimate Truth in their hand.
The abrahamian part of mankind is divided into muslems, jews and christians, of which each of them think they have the ultimate Truth in their hand.
Christians are divided into catolics, protestants, and ortodox (and others), of which each of them think they have the ultimate Truth in their hand.
Protestants are divided into Anglicans, Pentecosts, Mormons etc, of which each of them think they have the ultimate Truth in their hand.
The Pentecosts are divided into thos who belives in talking toungs, babtizing adults, beliving of snaks pawer (and others), of which... ah, you see the pattern?
Brewed down to extreem, there is only one who thinks he has the ultimate Truth and that is ... the reader of this sentence.

Doesn't this make you humble? Who has the ultimate Truth? I say, all of us, and none of us.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Is your intention to just insult or have a conversation?
Kelly

tell me about the shrubbery ..

what did it say to you?

my problem with you is you actually seem to think I'm credulous enough to take what you posted seriously -- and it is just insane to mistake that nonsense for reality.

listen, we all like to make believe -- we suspend our disbelief every time we watch some movie or TV show. But you have to come out of the theater or turn the damned thing off and get back to the world -- if you are sane.

there is faith, but unfortunately, one has thoughts. That can really screw up one's faith ... just ask any priest.

you see, there are those, like our previous president and his supporters, who would have us believe in the literal words of the Old Testament (the world was created in seven days, dinosaurs and men lived at the same time, together, etc.) and then there are those who live in this world and have to put up with the others, who are in the words of Lewis Black, "f'ing nuts."

Originally posted by FabianFnas
As long we agree that this is speculations and nothing more, and that any speculation is as much worth as anoyone's else speculation, I have no problem.

But when someone say that he has the Truth, and his Truth is the only Truth, and everyone's else Truth is wrong, then I strongly object.

then we are singing from the same sheet of music, are we not? Perhaps something by Wilhelm Stenhammar?

Originally posted by Scriabin
tell me about the shrubbery ..

what did it say to you?

my problem with you is you actually seem to think I'm credulous enough to take what you posted seriously -- and it is just insane to mistake that nonsense for reality.

listen, we all like to make believe -- we suspend our disbelief every time we watch some movie or TV show. But you have to come ...[text shortened]... orld and have to put up with the others, who are in the words of Lewis Black, "f'ing nuts."

Fine by me, you don't take what I say seriously I'll not bother you
with my views.
Kelly

Views based entirely on faith or disbelief trouble me -- bother me. Make me angry or make me laugh.

"There are two ways to slide easily through life," the noted linguist and mathematician Alfred Korzybski once said. "To believe everything or to doubt everything. Both ways save us from thinking."

Those two paths-unquestioning belief and unyielding disbelief, fundamentalist faith and radical skepticism-have for years polarized the debate over religion. In its starkest equation, the polemic pits those who view reason as wholly antithetical to their beliefs, against those whose rationalism leaves no room for the mysteries of faith. But is there some middle ground?

Originally posted by Conrau K
X & ~X is only partly true. I have never claimed otherwise. As for truth-tables, there are several versions. But I do not think that matters. In classical logic, X & ~X is always false (and, according to several people on this forum, this is a standard of coherency); in fuzzy logic, however, X & ~X can have some partial truth and it is quite natural.

Do you have any references to back that up? I am still of the opinion that it is totally false. It is possible that the '&' means something different, but then it wouldn't be the statement we are discussing.

The examples you gave of usage in everyday language similar to fuzzy logic do not demonstrate it either. When we say someone is tall and not tall we are not setting up X & ~X but rather saying 'he has some tallness but he is not very tall'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you have any references to back that up? I am still of the opinion that it is totally false. It is possible that the '&' means something different, but then it wouldn't be the statement we are discussing.

The examples you gave of usage in everyday language similar to fuzzy logic do not demonstrate it either. When we say someone is tall and not tal ...[text shortened]... are not setting up X & ~X but rather saying 'he has some tallness but he is not very tall'.

When we say someone is tall and not tall we are not setting up X & ~X but rather saying 'he has some tallness but he is not very tall'.

Sorry, I don't get it. What's the difference?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]So, if we admit a dialetheia like X and ~X, then how do we avoid the commitment that indeed everything is true (trivialism)? It seems we would have to embrace some form of paraconsistency under which the inference from X and ~X to P fails to hold for at least some P. Do you have some ideas on this?

I do not think that fuzzy logic necessarily adm ending to assert) that she is sort of in-between, that her 'fatness' is something vague.[/b]

Sorry I haven't responded sooner -- I was on vacation.

Well, as I see it, if we accept a truth-value gap, then X and ~X obtains trivially. If X can be assigned no value, then ~(X or ~X) is true, and, according to formal logic, then X and ~X is also true.

Then this is the part I was failing to understand before. Also "according to formal logic", that X and ~X is true entails that X is true. So you started with the premise that X can be assigned no truth value (or has no truth value as X falls in the truth-value gap), and now it seems you have argued around to X's having a truth value unless you want to deny the conjunction elimination. Doesn't make any sense to me how you get to employ formal logic here and yet not there. Also, I fail to see how you go from X's being in the truth-value gap to ~(X or ~X) being true. If X is in the truth-value gap, then why would something like ~(X or ~X) not also be in the truth-value gap?

Personally, I prefer fuzzy logic because I think it reflects our natural usage. When a girlfriend "I am sort of fat, sort of not" she is probably asserting (or intending to assert) that she is sort of in-between, that her 'fatness' is something vague.

But there seems nothing about this example that would recommend to me that I need to adopt fuzzy logic in order to capture such natural usage. Look at what you yourself have just stated: you stated that what she intends to impart is something like "as far as fatness goes, I am sort of in-between" or something like "my fatness is something vague". These aren't contradictions, so why would I need to alter my thinking on logic in order to grasp what she intends to say? Then even if ostensibly contradictory speech has currency in our natural usage, this only recommends that I be able to understand the actual intended propositional content, which probably isn't contradictory anyway -- it doesn't recommend that I need to come up with a way to make sense of otherwise formal contradictions. At any rate, I think it is probably true that people generally do not intend contradictions. Perhaps what she means is that she is fat according to certain standards and not fat according to other standards -- again, no contradiction in what is intended. Basically, I think I understand what you are saying, but I am not at all convinced we need fuzzy logic in order to capture the currency of natural usage, even when it comes to the vague properties.