11 Mar 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerQuite simply. Despite the fact the two positions are not linked I will take your statement as being coherrent for the moment. What we call logic has been discussed, demonstrated and rationalised for centuaries by philosophers, mathematicians etc. The results of this pyramid of agreed concepts is what we call logic. It follows rules which have been set out, tested and agreed. Logic is not at the mercy of perception, it stands alone regardless of it.
If your brain evolved from random chance, then how can you trust your own logic?
11 Mar 05
Originally posted by StarrmanAt one point there was a pyramid of agreement that the earth was flat.
Quite simply. Despite the fact the two positions are not linked I will take your statement as being coherrent for the moment. What we call logic has been discussed, demonstrated and rationalised for centuaries by philosophers, mathematicians etc. The results of this pyramid of agreed concepts is what we call logic. It follows rules which have been set o ...[text shortened]... t, tested and agreed. Logic is not at the mercy of perception, it stands alone regardless of it.
Were they being logical?
11 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusYes, potentially. Logic is a grammar for manipulating a very formal language. There is nothing logically invalid about the simple notion that the earth is flat; it is merely empirically invalid.
At one point there was a pyramid of agreement that the earth was flat.
Were they being logical?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
11 Mar 05
Originally posted by StarrmanCS Lewis said,
Quite simply. Despite the fact the two positions are not linked I will take your statement as being coherrent for the moment. What we call logic has been discussed, demonstrated and rationalised for centuaries by philosophers, mathematicians etc. The results of this pyramid of agreed concepts is what we call logic. It follows rules which have been set o ...[text shortened]... t, tested and agreed. Logic is not at the mercy of perception, it stands alone regardless of it.
"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."
You said:
"What we call logic has been discussed, demonstrated and rationalised for centuaries by philosophers, mathematicians etc. The results of this pyramid of agreed concepts is what we call logic. It follows rules which have been set out, tested and agreed. Logic is not at the mercy of perception, it stands alone regardless of it."
How can we trust the rules for logic that have been set out by men whose thoughts are mere accidents?
11 Mar 05
Originally posted by royalchickenThen since God is not empirically invalid, why is it not logical to say He exists?
Yes, potentially. Logic is a grammar for manipulating a very formal language. There is nothing logically invalid about the simple notion that the earth is flat; it is merely empirically invalid.
11 Mar 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat which helps an organism survive and reproduce remains in the gene pool and proliferates. Those random events which are detrimental to this end disappear from the gene pool. Happiness and pleasure as well as pain and suffering are consequences of those activities and qualities which work towards the end (or against, in the case of pain and suffering) of survival and reproduction in general.
If your brain evolved from random chance, then how can you trust your own logic?
I value happiness and the avoidance of pain. As logic helps me attain that which brings happiness and avoids pain, I trust it. It is something that brings me what I value.
11 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusIt isn't 'illogical' to say he exists. God isn't logically invalid, but he seems to be pretty empirically invalid, since he has yet to prove essential as an explanatory hypothesis for any scientific question.
Then since God is not empirically invalid, why is it not logical to say He exists?
11 Mar 05
Originally posted by royalchickenHow about "What caused the Big Bang?" Or is there a better theory?
It isn't 'illogical' to say he exists. God isn't logically invalid, but he seems to be pretty empirically invalid, since he has yet to prove essential as an explanatory hypothesis for any scientific question.
11 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusThat question seems illogical: part of the definition of 'cause' requires that the cause occur prior (earlier in time) to the caused. If we're taking the Big Bang to be the beginning of time, then anything being earlier in time is inconceivable. If we do not take the Big Bang to be the beginning of time, then the question is sort of a non-starter--you're trying to use the so-called 'first-cause' argument, but you haven't picked the 'first caused'.
How about "What caused the Big Bang?" Or is there a better theory?
11 Mar 05
Originally posted by royalchickenYou're right, anything restricted to this dimension of time is onconceivable. However, God claims to be in at least two dimensions of time. Why could He not have created the universe? Indeed, it is up to you to provide a better theory or--emplying the scientific method--we must embrace the best theory we have at the moment. And God is a lot better than "we don't know."
That question seems illogical: part of the definition of 'cause' requires that the cause occur prior (earlier in time) to the caused. If we're taking the Big Bang to be the beginning of time, then anything being earlier in time is inconceivable. If we do not take the Big Bang to be the beginning of time, then the question is sort of a non-starter-- ...[text shortened]... ing to use the so-called 'first-cause' argument, but you haven't picked the 'first caused'.