Logic and Reason

Originally posted by SharpeMother
Although I did take taekwando a few years ago when I was 17, I could hardly beat up my husband, he's a big dude. Ripped. 😵

TerrierJack was just giving an example of a plurium interrogationum which is a well known logical fallacy. In other words, it makes assumptions for the question to have any weight. Regardless of if you answer "yes" or "no", it still implies that you have a wife, and you have been beating her.

Likewise, your original post is a plurium interrogationum, as it makes assumptions and tries to draw a conclusion on premises that has not been proved.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]Logic existed long before life.
i disagree. logic is a conscious process. logic is not a pheonomenon like rain or an errupting volcano. logic occurs if a conscious being makes a conscius effort to come up with a reasoning based on information through certain rules.[/b]

Then we have to define 'logic' further.

If a number (A) is equal to another number (B) and (B) is equal to (C), then (A) is equal to (C). This is logic defined as a consious process.

But if an atom (hydrogen atom) is exactly like another atom, and this in turn is exactly like a third atom, then the third atom reacts to forces exactly as the first atom. This is unregarded to a consious mind. Meaning that logic doesn't have to be a consious.

(To find out that the third atom also is an hydrogene atom, then the process is consious again.)

So - what is a general definition of 'logic', or do we need more than one definition so it will cover specific conditions?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Then we have to define 'logic' further.

If a number (A) is equal to another number (B) and (B) is equal to (C), then (A) is equal to (C). This is logic defined as a consious process.

But if an atom (hydrogen atom) is exactly like another atom, and this in turn is exactly like a third atom, then the third atom reacts to forces exactly as the first at ...[text shortened]... on of 'logic', or do we need more than one definition so it will cover specific conditions?

your examples are identical, even if you think they are not.

both examples are illustrated using a conscious process. your conscious process. just because you used abstract concepts in one example and concrete objects in another doesn't change anything. the atom doesn't behave logically, it simply behaves. in the only way it can. obeying the laws of physics isn't logical, it is the only course of action.

"To find out that the third atom also is an hydrogene atom, then the process is consious again"
irrelevant. nothing has changed for the atom. it is the same atom, only a conscious being has assigned a label to it. the atom couldn't care less.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"To find out that the third atom also is an hydrogene atom, then the process is consious again"
irrelevant. nothing has changed for the atom. it is the same atom, only a conscious being has assigned a label to it. the atom couldn't care less.

Therefore we have to define 'logic' thouroghly (spelling?).

I say there were logic before life. Logic, in the mathematical sense, was there before life.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Therefore we have to define 'logic' thouroghly (spelling?).

I say there were logic before life. Logic, in the mathematical sense, was there before life.

logic has already been defined. look it up in the dictionary.

what you call logic is simply the laws of the universe. you cannot call that logic because there is no "illogic". the laws of the universe do not change.

logic means you have to go through a process and choose the next best step. logically. also logically, the next step can be one that is not so logical at which point you enter the illogical. when it comes to the laws of reality(or universe) you don't choose your next step. it simply happens. given the conditions, 4 hidrogen atoms will turn into a helium. always.

"I say there were logic before life. Logic, in the mathematical sense, was there before life."
and i say you need to check out what logic means. if you start assigning terms to two different concepts(and i think i shown the concepts are different) then language is rendered useless. it would be like using "toy" to refer to a gun, poison, heroin, beach ball and then telling your child "go play with your toy"

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
logic has already been defined. look it up in the dictionary.

what you call logic is simply the laws of the universe. you cannot call that logic because there is no "illogic". the laws of the universe do not change.

logic means you have to go through a process and choose the next best step. logically. also logically, the next step can be one that is n ...[text shortened]... o a gun, poison, heroin, beach ball and then telling your child "go play with your toy"

I fold. You're probably right.

Originally posted by SharpeMother
Are logic and reason laws? Or are they a consensus among humans based on repeated observations? Are the laws/consensuses of logic and reason material or immaterial in nature? If logic and reason are laws that are universally true then how can they be evolved by evolution? If evolution is material in nature, it then needs to work with a material brain an ...[text shortened]... illogical based on our consensus of what is logical. I think I just proved the existence of God.

I think Vistesd proposed the best explanation for logic. The rules of logic (for example, modus ponens) are not things; they are standards of coherency. If I say 'I have a cat' and 'I do not have a cat', then I simply being incoherent. My listener must either, like Plato inferring the tripartite nature of the soul, say that there are two different types of possession being employed here (perhaps I have a cat in the sense that I own one, but do not have a cat in the sense that I am not holding one.) Ruling out the possibility of ambiguity, the listener must then conclude that I am just being incoherent. Perhaps I suffer a cognitive deficiency or was temporarily confused. There is no real-world interpretation that allows me both to have a cat and not to have a cat simultaneously. Logic then is not a consensus; it is not something socially constructed; it is a standard for how propositions can be coherent.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I think Vistesd proposed the best explanation for logic. The rules of logic (for example, modus ponens) are not things; they are standards of coherency. If I say 'I have a cat' and 'I do not have a cat', then I simply being incoherent. My listener must either, like Plato inferring the tripartite nature of the soul, say that there are two different ty ...[text shortened]... s not something socially constructed; it is a standard for how propositions can be coherent.

I'll take this one.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I fold. You're probably right.

In the thread Thread 121127 interesting things are asid that supports my thinking:

twhitehead: "Now that you have got me thinking, I would prefer to say that logic is independent of time and thus can either be said to exist at all times or not exist in time. In general, the abstract is independent of the subject and thus cannot be tied to a subject or be said to exist for specific subjects alone."

Perhaps I shouldn't fold so easily?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
In the thread Thread 121127 interesting things are asid that supports my thinking:

twhitehead: "Now that you have got me thinking, I would prefer to say that logic is independent of time and thus can either be said to exist at all times or not exist in time. In general, the abstract is independent of the subject and thus cannot be ti ...[text shortened]... r be said to exist for specific subjects alone."

Perhaps I shouldn't fold so easily?

he said the roughly same thing here.

perhaps you should stick to your opinion and let twhite have his.

either way support your decision with valid arguments, i supported mine.

I'm pretty much a formalist when it comes to logic and mathematics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_%28mathematics%29

"[...]statements of mathematics and logic can be thought of as statements about the consequences of certain string manipulation rules."

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
he said the roughly same thing here.

perhaps you should stick to your opinion and let twhite have his.

either way support your decision with valid arguments, i supported mine.

Nah, I think I sit at the side and follow the fight.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I think Vistesd proposed the best explanation for logic. The rules of logic (for example, modus ponens) are not things; they are standards of coherency. If I say 'I have a cat' and 'I do not have a cat', then I simply being incoherent. My listener must either, like Plato inferring the tripartite nature of the soul, say that there are two different ty ...[text shortened]... s not something socially constructed; it is a standard for how propositions can be coherent.

Edited out again.

Originally posted by SharpeMother
My original post was based on the assumption that atheists use logic and reason to disprove the existence of God, or at least atheists demand that Christians use logic and reason to prove the existence of God. Is that assumption correct?

I do not remember that being part of the logic in your first post. Can you explain where you used it?
It seems rather odd that you required assumptions about Atheists methodologies in order to prove the existence of God.

You said, [b]"Logic existed long before life." - God also existed long before life. If you can make that statement about logic then I can also make that statement about God, or else you are being arbitrary.[/b]
And you are being completely illogical. You appear to be capable of reason but your reasoning process lacks any "principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration".

Originally posted by Conrau K
I think Vistesd proposed the best explanation for logic. The rules of logic (for example, modus ponens) are not things; they are standards of coherency. If I say 'I have a cat' and 'I do not have a cat', then I simply being incoherent. My listener must either, like Plato inferring the tripartite nature of the soul, say that there are two different ty ...[text shortened]... s not something socially constructed; it is a standard for how propositions can be coherent.

Let me try again.

You start well, but your conclusion doesn't follow.

What I agree with:
- Logic is a standard for coherency. Definitely. We can examine any set of prepositions and, under the yardstick of logic, measure their coherence.

What I don't agree with:
You seem to believe that coherence precedes logic. This is incorrect. In your example, your listener concludes that you are being incoherent precisely because he is using logic as a yardstick. But what determines the choice of yardstick? Obviously, we require an ex-ante standard to choose between possible yardsticks. So what we now call "logic" is, indeed, a set of statements about the consequences of certain string manipulation rules. But the choice of which set of statements should be chosen is determined by consensus (it requires agreement).