Are INTP's less likely to be religious?

[Phenylethylene]

By the way in response to the Christians on this thread who have just made posts arguing that the only thing we Christians can fall back on is faith, I think you may as well admit that you have lost the argument on this thread.

It is *not* helpful to argue for the existence of God using faith; you won't convince anyone here (myself included).

It wouldn't convince me, but I find the position more honest and defensible.

[Geoff]

"If everything is logical then how was the universe created?"

Are you serious?

And who said anything about having “faith” in logic?

You are misunderstanding the fundamentals of the argument here, and this thread moves too fast for me to take the time to explain it to you, although I would like to. Sorry.

Yes, it is a classic and easily refuted 'alogical' argument. Just because we do not have a working theory of Universal creation does not prove it is outside the bounds of logic, it is merely outside the bounds of current science.

-Geoff

[Dman]

I didn't get 'alogic' from there. I made up that form of the word, the term I got was alogical and I've seen it used in a number of settings AND dictionaries. In fact, most dictionaries probably don't even have 'alogic' since there are MORE THINGS THAT ARE ALOGICAL than 'logical' or 'illogical'. I have tried and tried to explain how every fucking thing isn't logical or illogical. Until you stop twisting/ignoring everything important I say to confirm your idea of me being some illogical hack, I will no longer respond to any of your posts. It's just not worth it. Your last comment was an example of rhetoric, btw.

Don't get so upset. We can have a civilized debate here.

The thing is, you claim you can back up examples of "alogical", but so far no one has been convinced. Not because we don't like you; you just haven't proven or made your point. I don't see that I am twisting anything, on the contrary it is you who took one term from the definition and applied that term as ultimately defining the word. That's spin if I ever saw it.

Not sure where you're going with the rhetoric thing, but don't give up. I'm still listening.

[Edmond Zedo]

Don't get so upset. We can have a civilized debate here.

The thing is, you claim you can back up examples of "alogical", but so far no one has been convinced. Not because we don't like you; you just haven't proven or made your point. I don't see that I am twisting anything, on the contrary it is you who took one term from the definition and applied that term as ultimately defining the word. That's spin if I ever saw it.

Not sure where you're going with the rhetoric thing, but don't give up. I'm still listening.
I think songbird was convinced, fwiwbtwthx.

[Dman]

I think songbird was convinced, fwiwbtwthx.

Well, I don't know about that, I don't think she needed to be convinced. Wasn't she already of that belief?

Or am I alogically practicing rhetoric?

[Edmond Zedo]

Well, I don't know about that, I don't think she needed to be convinced. Wasn't she already of that belief?

Or am I alogically practicing rhetoric?
I'm not sure if you were here TEN YEARS AGO when these positions were becoming clear.

[booyalab]

Don't get so upset. We can have a civilized debate here.

The thing is, you claim you can back up examples of "alogical", but so far no one has been convinced. Not because we don't like you; you just haven't proven or made your point. I don't see that I am twisting anything, on the contrary it is you who took one term from the definition and applied that term as ultimately defining the word. That's spin if I ever saw it.

Not sure where you're going with the rhetoric thing, but don't give up. I'm still listening.
Never patronize me again.
We can but apparently we may not. I will quote everything I've said, as there's no point in saying the same thing in a different way.

Logic is a structure, like a house. Just because you can use every conceivable inanimate object to construct a house, like you can use every existing word in a logical statement, does not mean every inanimate object is a house. Likewise every word/phrase is not an attempt to be logical.

I, for one, am not denying that EVERYTHING could be reasoned about logically IN THEORY. HOWEVER, we are vastly limited by our perception and language with which to understand enough about reality in order to A. develop inductive principles about everything B. hold everything true or untrue by definition. For example, If we could reason about God, that would require A. some principle or law of nature that is higher than he is (obviously not gonna happen)B. Some self-evident definition/s that categorizes God (obviously not gonna happen...)...try thinking about God as the intersecting part of a ven diagram (obviously not)
.

Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos), meaning reason) is the study of arguments. Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments. Arguments express inferences—the processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones. As such, of particular concern in logic is the structure of arguments—the formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones, where "formal" means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves. Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference, including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination. It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge.

As a byproduct, logic provides prescriptions for reasoning, that is, how people—as well as other intelligent beings, machines, and systems—ought to reason. However, such prescriptions are not essential to logic itself; rather, they are an application. How people actually reason is usually studied in other fields, including cognitive psychology.

Traditionally, logic is studied as a branch of philosophy. Since the mid-1800s logic has been commonly studied in mathematics, and, even more recently, in computer science. As a science, logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments and devises schemata by which these are codified. The scope of logic can therefore be very large, including reasoning about probability and causality. Also studied in logic are the structure of fallacious arguments and paradoxes. The ancient Greeks divided dialectic into logic and rhetoric. Rhetoric, concerned with persuasive arguments, would currently be seen as contrasted with logic, in some sense; as is dialectic in most of its acquired meanings.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?p=59147#post59147
here's a post by Zedo in that same thread in which he effectively agrees with me. http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=59223&postcount=8

... how do you determine the truth of the assumptions used to reach God's existance? In our little reality, ideally the premise would be based on induction. Since God is supernatural, that's impossible. IN ADDITION, Any greater (edit, or even similar in magnitude) category than God that would need to exist in order to deductively prove he exists would make him NOT GOD.

before you decide what's logical and illogical you need to come to grips with what it fucking means. It is a structure, and as such, if all of it's components are isolated or randomized...it is no longer that structure. Holy crap, This is so obvious. Likewise something that could not conceivably fall into a logical format because there is nothing KNOWN ABOUT on a similar level that is a constant or a category...cannot be reasoned (edit: deemed logical or illogical)AT OUR PRESENT UNDERSTANDING.

this was so self-indulgent, I love it. I have to go now. Try not to screw up my meaning too much while I'm gone.

[MacGuffin]

I don't understand what the problem with "alogical" is.

God is alogical.

One cannot prove or disprove God, cannot experiment with God, or sense God thru the senses (songbird may disagree).

That something is alogical does not mean it is true, or real, or false, etc.

I know that someone like Edmond Zedo will complain that that makes anything that cannot be disproved like ghosts or invisible elephants alogical instead of illogical.

That is correct. Disprove the existence of God, and then belief in his existence becomes illogical. Prove the existence of God, belief becomes logical. With neither, it is alogical.

[mgb]

How refreshing to get your usual well reasoned and incisive analysis of the issues...

thank you for your helpful contribution to the debate.

I have one question for you about common experience.

If there is only one God who has always existed as the Bible says, why through history have their been so many different Gods and Goddesses (Isis being an example) and so many people having a common experience, but not one shared by you, or most modern people?

Also, if Judaism had failed as a religion, do you think that Christianity would have come to pass, and by that same extension, Islam?

[songbird36]

Yes, it is a classic and easily refuted 'alogical' argument. Just because we do not have a working theory of Universal creation does not prove it is outside the bounds of logic, it is merely outside the bounds of current science.

-Geoff

He's probably talking about the argument from first cause. This is one of the more convincing of the "necessity" arguments for the existence of God. I will post a link on it in a minute.

[mgb]

I don't understand what the problem with "alogical" is.

God is alogical.

One cannot prove or disprove God, cannot experiment with God, or sense God thru the senses (songbird may disagree).

That something is alogical does not mean it is true, or real, or false, etc.

I know that someone like Edmond Zedo will complain that that makes anything that cannot be disproved like ghosts or invisible elephants alogical instead of illogical.

That is correct. Disprove the existence of God, and then belief in his existence becomes illogical. Prove the existence of God, belief becomes logical. With neither, it is alogical.


Just because we can't prove or disprove something, it does not make it alogical.

Like I said before it's a logical fallicy to say something exists because we can't prove it or disprove it.

Within the realm of logic, it is ok not to know the answer to something. But it's still within the realm of logic (or illogic).

Alogic might be a real word, but it doesn't mean it exists.

[songbird36]

I have one question for you about common experience.

If there is only one God who has always existed as the Bible says, why through history have their been so many different Gods and Goddesses (Isis being an example) and so many people having a common experience, but not one shared by you, or most modern people?

Also, if Judaism had failed as a religion, do you think that Christianity would have come to pass, and by that same extension, Islam?

Good question. It will be apparent that I don't accept the multiple gods of pantheistic religions.

I think all monotheistic religious people share experiences of the same God (in fact Judaism, Islam and Christianity all worship the same God of creation - Yahweh), and religious experiences within these three groups are similar.

What type of common experiences am I talking about? Here are some examples:

* Prayers being answered
* Apprehension of the holy spirit through worship (some people experience this in their body and will start to shake)
* Miracles
* Miracle healing
* stigmata

[mgb]

If the reasons behind the words are 'technically logical' that same reason does not apply to the format of the words, which makes up an opinion. This was mgbradsh's mistake, because he contrived a context for each one of my random words/phrases he assumed they were each illogical or logical. It does not follow that, for instance, because a cat who is sitting on a hat might be doing it for a reason that the isolated phrase "the cat sat on a hat" is logical or illogical. To use my earlier analogy, he was calling a tennis racket a house, because he found a piece of wood and another tennis racket that, when put together, could make one. Since you idiots ("jk" hahahahahaha........!) couldn't read between the lines, I have now spelled out for you one way, of many, in which "alogic" can exist. End of discussion

The reason your analogies don't get used is because you give an A and B answer to them, one of the answers being very extreme, the other one being to your liking. If someone picks the extreme one they get torn apart and you win. If someone picks the one you like, they agree with you and you win.

When someone picks neither and points out that your analogy is in fact ridiculous, they win.

You analogy is ridiculous.

[mgb]

Good question. It will be apparent that I don't accept the multiple gods of pantheistic religions.

I think all monotheistic religious people share experiences of the same God (in fact Judaism, Islam and Christianity all worship the same God of creation - Yahweh), and religious experiences within these three groups are similar.

What type of common experiences am I talking about? Here are some examples:

* Prayers being answered
* Apprehension of the holy spirit through worship (some people experience this in their body and will start to shake)
* Miracles
* Miracle healing
* stigmata


But you didn't answer the question. What about pagan religions, like say in Ancient Greece. Why was their experience with the Gods different from yours? Why did they have more gods?

[n0mad]

When they started believing in God (or gods), they didn't had a word of for logic.
Just a thought with no pretensions whatsoever.

[songbird36]

Don't get so upset. We can have a civilized debate here.

The thing is, you claim you can back up examples of "alogical", but so far no one has been convinced. Not because we don't like you; you just haven't proven or made your point. I don't see that I am twisting anything, on the contrary it is you who took one term from the definition and applied that term as ultimately defining the word. That's spin if I ever saw it.

Not sure where you're going with the rhetoric thing, but don't give up. I'm still listening.

Things in the "a-logical" sphere are things the existence of which can only be proved by a priori experience. In other words, anything which exists but which does not have a *necessary* existence.

Logic only proves those things which must *necessarily* exist, or be true.

[MacGuffin]

Just because we can't prove or disprove something, it does not make it alogical.

Like I said before it's a logical fallicy to say something exists because we can't prove it or disprove it.

Within the realm of logic, it is ok not to know the answer to something. But it's still within the realm of logic (or illogic).

Alogic might be a real word, but it doesn't mean it exists.
:banghead:

I never said "something" (God) exists because we can't prove or disprove it.

Alogical things DO NOT "exist". If they "existed" they would be logical.

Something classified as alogical may BECOME logical or illogical.

It is not an end-all, be-all state.

[Edmond Zedo]

That is correct. Disprove the existence of God, and then belief in his existence becomes illogical. Prove the existence of God, belief becomes logical. With neither, it is alogical.
Here's some fuckin' logic for you.

Premises (If you disagree with them, let's hear it):
A. Belief=Lack of doubt
B. God=Neither provable nor disprovable
C. Illogical=Certainty in that which can't be proven

Conclusion: Belief in God is illogical. Belief that there certainly is no god is illogical.

No need to invent words here!

[songbird36]

But you didn't answer the question. What about pagan religions, like say in Ancient Greece. Why was their experience with the Gods different from yours? Why did they have more gods?

Since the dawn of civilization people have searched for a relationship with the supernatural in different ways. Some have believed in multiple gods, others a single god. Some experiences will indeed be similar as between the different religions (even pagan ones).

However my argument on this thread has been based on the vast commonality of experience as between proponents of *monotheistic* religious practices in the past 1500 years or so. I've done quite a bit of reading in this area and would be happy to share it with people if they're interested.

I will also endavour to try and simplify my language in future, for Zedo's benefit.

[Edmond Zedo]

Things in the "a-logical" sphere are things the existence of which can only be proved by a priori experience. In other words, anything which exists but which does not have a *necessary* existence.

Logic only proves those things which must *necessarily* exist, or be true.
So you disagree with the old statement "God exists because His existence is necessary."???

[mgb]

:banghead:

I never said "something" (God) exists because we can't prove or disprove it.

Alogical things DO NOT "exist". If they "existed" they would be logical.

Something classified as alogical may BECOME logical or illogical.

It is not an end-all, be-all state.

Belief in alogical things (still no examples) is illogical.

Since God can neither be proven or disproven, belief in Him is illogical. Since belief in God is illogical, God himself becomes illogical. Not alogical.

[Edmond Zedo]

However my argument on this thread has been based on the vast commonality of experience as between proponents of *monotheistic* religious practices in the past 1500 years or so. I've done quite a bit of reading in this area and would be happy to share it with people if they're interested.
You're the last proponent of monotheistic religion I'll be able to bear for years. Not because you are one. Because you're you.

[mgb]

Since the dawn of civilization people have searched for a relationship with the supernatural in different ways. Some have believed in multiple gods, others a single god. Some experiences will indeed be similar as between the different religions (even pagan ones).

However my argument on this thread has been based on the vast commonality of experience as between proponents of *monotheistic* religious practices in the past 1500 years or so. I've done quite a bit of reading in this area and would be happy to share it with people if they're interested.

I will also endavour to try and simplify my language in future, for Zedo's benefit.

So God is 1500 years old? Or 2000? Or 6000?

C'mon. Polytheistic religions directly contradict your monotheistic experience (unless you are starting to hear multiple voices). How do you reconcile thousands of years of human history with the last 1500?

[songbird36]

So you disagree with the old statement "God exists because His existence is necessary."???

Correct. Arguments for the *necessary* existence of God (such as the Argument from First Cause) don't stand up to scrutiny.

I will start to discuss First Cause in the next post and you'll see why they don't stack up.

Thus I am not basing my argument for God on His *necessary* existence.

[Edmond Zedo]

I should clarify that while theism itself can't be disproven, so much of the Holy Bible has been disproven scientifically that it's a joke to believe it.

[songbird36]

I should clarify that while theism itself can't be disproven, so much of the Holy Bible has been disproven scientifically that it's a joke to believe it.

I agree. I don't believe every word of what the Bible says either, as it was written over a period of several hundred years by a large number of different authors who sometimes contradict each other.

There are also the "gnostic" gospels which were discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in Iran, but which were suppressed by early Christians and not included as part of the official Bible.

[MacGuffin]

Here's some fuckin' logic for you.

Premises (If you disagree with them, let's hear it):
A. Belief=Lack of doubt
B. God=Neither provable nor disprovable
C. Illogical=Certainty in that which can't be proven

Conclusion: Belief in God is illogical. Belief that there certainly is no god is illogical.

No need to invent words here!
Thanks for cursing, but C is wrong. Believing in what can't be (dis)proven is alogical. Believing in what is disproven is illogical.

We did not invent alogical. Pull out a dictionary and look it up.

Finally, some advice for you and mgbradsh:


Ten Rules to Live By to Achieve INTP Success

[...]4. Listen to Everything Try not to dismiss anything immediately. Let it soak in, and then apply judgement. Try not to dismiss things that are alogical - they are not illogical.
http://www.personalitypage.com/INTP_per.html

[songbird36]

You're the last proponent of monotheistic religion I'll be able to bear for years. Not because you are one. Because you're you.

Good to see the old Zedo back - I was a bit uncomfortable with the tight lipped version..

[Edmond Zedo]

Thanks for cursing, but C is wrong. Believing in what can't be (dis)proven is alogical. Believing in what is disproven is illogical.

We did not invent alogical. Pull out a dictionary and look it up.

Finally, some advice for you and mgbradsh:


http://www.personalitypage.com/INTP_per.html
Knowing you disagree with C is enough to nullify any further debate. And I don't really care what "personality page" said.

[mgb]

Knowing you disagree with C is enough to nullify any further debate. And I don't really care what "personality page" said.

I concur.

edit: I'd also like to add this for MacGuffin.


2. Face Your Weaknesses! We all have weaknesses. Recognizing your weaknesses for what they are (without beating yourself up) will give you the power to change your life for the better.

It's ok to be wrong.

[Johnny]

Here's some fuckin' logic for you.

Premises (If you disagree with them, let's hear it):
A. Belief=Lack of doubt
B. God=Neither provable nor disprovable
C. Illogical=Certainty in that which can't be proven

Conclusion: Belief in God is illogical. Belief that there certainly is no god is illogical.

No need to invent words here!I disagree with A, to start things off. To me, belief isn't a lack of doubt. Doubt is an essential element for belief to be understood clearly.

[mgb]

Good to see the old Zedo back - I was a bit uncomfortable with the tight lipped version..

Back to commonality of experience.

I have this friend, well really a neighbor that turned out to be a friend of a friend. Recently, he left work early, drove to the police station, and told the police that someone at work was trying to kill him (he works for a company that reads gauges). Turns out he was having a schitzophrenic episode. So he is on meds and all better now.

Now I bet lots of people have had an experience similar to that. Does that mean that everyone has schitzophrenia?

Just because some people have a common experience, it doesn't make something fact.

[Dman]

Never patronize me again.
We can but apparently we may not. I will quote everything I've said, as there's no point in saying the same thing in a different way.

Well, when one accuses me of "twisting" things and regresses to becoming emotional and swearing when responding, I feel inclined to talk down to them, as they are losing sight of the debate and letting irrational emotions get ahold of them.

To me this is usually a sign of frustration because either a.) that person knows they are wrong and can't admit it; or b.) that person cannot intelligently communicate the message or point they are trying to make.

So if you don't want to be patronized, don't behave childishly.

Cheer up, we're all wrong sometimes.

[MacGuffin]

Well if there is one thing I know, it is mgbradsh and Zedo don't understand what logic is.

[Edmond Zedo]

I disagree with A, to start things off. To me, belief isn't a lack of doubt. Doubt is an essential element for belief to be understood clearly.
Ok. I'll take your word for it, not being a true believer. But in order to be consistent, you'll have to claim uncertainty about the existence of god from now on. That means you shouldn't argue he exists.

[Edmond Zedo]

Well if there is one thing I know, it is mgbradsh and Zedo don't understand what logic is.
Does this knowledge reside in the same part of your brain as belief in god? *dusts off CAT scan machine*

[mgb]

Does this knowledge reside in the same part of your brain as belief in god? *dusts off CAT scan machine*

Why just scan, I think we should operate.

[Edmond Zedo]

Why just scan, I think we should operate.
*plugs in bone saw* "One break, coooommmmin' up!....CHANGE!"

[mgb]

*plugs in bone saw* "One break, coooommmmin' up!....CHANGE!"

Don't worry MacGuffin, I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night, you are in good hands.

[MacGuffin]

Ok, show me how a belief in something unproven is illogical.

[mgb]

Ok, show me how a belief in something unproven is illogical.

Here:



Mistaking Deductive Validity for Truth

This fallacy takes the form of assuming that because an argument is a logical syllogism, therefore the conclusion must be true. It ignores the possibility that the premises of the argument may be false.

Example: "I just read a book that proves that that book's author can do much better than any psychological test at finding out if someone is malingering. The book's author reviews the literature showing that no psychological test is perfect at identifying malingering. All have at least some false positives and false negatives. But the author has a new method of identifying malingerers. All he does is listen to the sound of their voice as they say a sentence or two. And he included in the book a chart showing that by using this method he has never been wrong in hundreds of cases. That proves his method is better than using psychological tests."

From http://kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.php

It's what you are doing for alogic.

[Edmond Zedo]

Ok, show me how a belief in something unproven is illogical.

If the likelyhood of it is not 100%, then to claim to know it is 100% is purely illogical. That's as simple and as complex as it need be.

[songbird36]

Here:



From http://kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.php

It's what you are doing for alogic.

Well my friend you've really sliced yourself up with the bonesaw for this one.

That post regarding logical and fallacies *precisely* proves my point that logic is a human construct, not a natural law.

This is because a perfectly logical conclusion can be derived from a set of premises that are completely and utterly false..

[Edmond Zedo]

Well my friend you've really sliced yourself up with the bonesaw for this one.

That post regarding logical and fallacies *precisely* proves my point that logic is a human construct, not a natural law.

This is because a perfectly logical conclusion can be derived from a set of premises that are completely and utterly false..
I think you're talking to yourself from here on out.

[songbird36]

Back to commonality of experience.

Now I bet lots of people have had an experience similar to that. Does that mean that everyone has schitzophrenia?



Not everyone does..but *you* do...

[mgb]

Well my friend you've really sliced yourself up with the bonesaw for this one.

That post regarding logical and fallacies *precisely* proves my point that logic is a human construct, not a natural law.

This is because a perfectly logical conclusion can be derived from a set of premises that are completely and utterly false..

I wasn't talking to you. You still have some work to do regarding my other posts.

And it's an example of someone using false logic, not that logic is a human invention.

[songbird36]

I think you're talking to yourself from here on out.

Why's that?

You stuck now are you? Getting too hard for you?

[mgb]

Not everyone does..but *you* do...

Are you saying I am schitzophrenic, breaking INTPCentral rule 3.2. For shame. Where are the admins when you need them.

[Geoff]

Well my friend you've really sliced yourself up with the bonesaw for this one.

That post regarding logical and fallacies *precisely* proves my point that logic is a human construct, not a natural law.

This is because a perfectly logical conclusion can be derived from a set of premises that are completely and utterly false..

Yes a logical conclusion can of course be wrong. That's the whole point of the scientific process. Science is not operated by discovering truths, it is about disproving logical hypotheses.
Logic is a deductive process not a 'truth'!

-Geoff

[Dman]

I agree. I don't believe every word of what the Bible says either, as it was written over a period of several hundred years by a large number of different authors who sometimes contradict each other.

What?! I thought GOD wrote the bible!

[Johnny]

Ok. I'll take your word for it, not being a true believer. But in order to be consistent, you'll have to claim uncertainty about the existence of god from now on. That means you shouldn't argue he exists.I cannot fathom how my doubts then require I argue my position according to your restrictions, EZ.

And so I won't.

[Edmond Zedo]

Are you saying I am schitzophrenic, breaking INTPCentral rule 3.2. For shame. Where are the admins when you need them.
Iirc, int said something like "All you have to do is callll me (via PM). I'll be anything you need. I wanna be...Your Sledge Hammer!"

[Geoff]

I cannot fathom how my doubts then require I argue my position according to your restrictions, EZ.

And so I won't.

Good for you, belief isnt something you can logically argue. For that I respect you.

-Geoff

[songbird36]

Are you saying I am schitzophrenic, breaking INTPCentral rule 3.2. For shame. Where are the admins when you need them.

It was a joke for heaven's sake. Maybe I should hold a flag up when I'm making one?

*False logic* is not when the logical premises are false. It is where a conclusion does not logically follow from the premises which have been stated.

And..we're not talking *to* people here, we're all having a discussion. Or did I miss something?

[Edmond Zedo]

Good for you, belief isnt something you can logically argue. For that I respect you.

-Geoff
If everyone on the Other Side weren't trying to logically argue belief, this thread would be a lot shorter.

[songbird36]

Iirc, int said something like "All you have to do is callll me (via PM). I'll be anything you need. I wanna be...Your Sledge Hammer!"

You gonna be his sledgehammer AND his testimony?

Very charitable of you..

[MacGuffin]

If the likelyhood of it is not 100%, then to claim to know it is 100% is purely illogical. That's as simple and as complex as it need be.
There is no "likelyhood" in an unproven belief. There is no percentage to assign. It could be 100% or 0%. It is UNPROVEN. Not disproven. Not likely to be disproven. It is a complete unknown. That is why logic does not apply.


This fallacy takes the form of assuming that because an argument is a logical syllogism, therefore the conclusion must be true. It ignores the possibility that the premises of the argument may be false.
Statement C (which I disagreed with) is not a syllogism. All the statements together comprise one, but not C by itself. This does not apply.

[mgb]

It was a joke for heaven's sake. Maybe I should hold a flag up when I'm making one?

*False logic* is not when the logical premises are false. It is where a conclusion does not logically follow from the premises which have been stated.

And..we're not talking *to* people here, we're all having a discussion. Or did I miss something?

Maybe we all need to raise a flag for jokes then, isn't your IQ low or something.

False logic would breed false conclusions though, no? So maybe using false or fallicious logic, MacGuffin has formed some erroneous conclusions?

[Johnny]

If everyone on the Other Side weren't trying to logically argue belief, this thread would be a lot shorter.I'm not sure about that. I think it's clear that what we do believe in impacts us very deeply, it affects both our worldview and the actions we take in our lives.

In my opinion, as long as life remains important to us belief will be a hot topic.

[MacGuffin]

Yes a logical conclusion can of course be wrong. That's the whole point of the scientific process. Science is not operated by discovering truths, it is about disproving logical hypotheses.
Logic is a deductive process not a 'truth'!

-Geoff
Tell that to mgbradsh.

[MacGuffin]

Maybe we all need to raise a flag for jokes then, isn't your IQ low or something.

False logic would breed false conclusions though, no? So maybe using false or fallicious logic, MacGuffin has formed some erroneous conclusions?
What conclusions?

[songbird36]

Maybe we all need to raise a flag for jokes then, isn't your IQ low or something.

False logic would breed false conclusions though, no? So maybe using false or fallicious logic, MacGuffin has formed some erroneous conclusions?

You've missed my point again, surprise surprise.

I'm not sure why I keep bothering to explain...Booyalab gives up a lot sooner, I've noticed.

[SensEye]

Disprove the existence of God, and then belief in his existence becomes illogical. Prove the existence of God, belief becomes logical. With neither, it is alogical.I've seen this notion of disproving things so often that I must wade in and object. It is generally accepted you cannot prove the negative hypothesis (i.e. that something "is not"). Furthermore, it is generally accepted that something does not exist until such time as sufficient evidence in favor of it's existence is brought forward.

Belief in things not sufficiently proven to exist is not logical. It is not necessary to disprove something before it becomes logical to not believe in it.

Aside 1) What constitutes "sufficient proof", especially when it comes to things such as God, is open to debate.

Aside 2) I'd like to get my nomination in early, regarding this whole discussion relating to the semantics of logic, a logic, illogic for "most tedious argument of the year" award.

Thank you. Carry on.:)

[mgb]

There is no "likelyhood" in an unproven belief. There is no percentage to assign. It could be 100% or 0%. It is UNPROVEN. Not disproven. Not likely to be disproven. It is a complete unknown. That is why logic does not apply.


Statement C (which I disagreed with) is not a syllogism. All the statements together comprise one, but not C by itself. This does not apply.


Your conclusion is that alogic exists because we can't prove it doesn't.

Also that God is alogical because we can't logically prove that he exists or logically prove that he doesn't exist.

The word you are missing at the end of the second statement is "yet". What is missing to make a logical statement is facts. That doesn't put God in the realm of the alogical, it puts him in the realm of the unknown.

Until we can prove he exists we have to assume belief in him is illogical, not alogical.

Let's assume this, say the rapture happens tomorrow, Zedo and I, on our way to hell will go, "We were wrong, logically God does exist." You on the otherhand will be sitting there going, "This isn't happening, God is alogical."

Now if the rapture never happens, we can go, "Belief in God is illogical."

[Edmond Zedo]

I've seen this notion of disproving things so often that I must wade in and object. It is generally accepted you cannot prove the negative hypothesis (i.e. that something "is not"). Furthermore, it is generally accepted that something does not exist until such time as sufficient evidence in favor of it's existence is brought forward.

Belief in things not sufficiently proven to exist is not logical. It is not necessary to disprove something before it becomes logical to not believe in it.

Aside 1) What constitutes "sufficient proof", especially when it comes to things such as God, is open to debate.

Aside 2) I'd like to get my nomination in early, regarding this whole discussion relating to the semantics of logic, a logic, illogic for "most tedious argument of the year" award.

Thank you. Carry on.:)
"Sho nuff. That's powaful stuff."

[mgb]

You've missed my point again, surprise surprise.

I'm not sure why I keep bothering to explain...Booyalab gives up a lot sooner, I've noticed.

Surprise is on me I guess, you continue not to make any points.

Jesus H. Christ. You aren't explaining anything, you are just saying, "I'm not sure why I keep bothering to explain."

How is that explaining anything?

And since you have said that it proves that "logic is a human construct", explain that too.

[songbird36]

Jesus H. Christ. You aren't explaining anything, you are just saying, "I'm not sure why I keep bothering to explain."

How is that explaining anything?

And since you have said that it proves that "logic is a human construct", explain that too.

I just did in my post before the last one. You weren't reading it, apparently.

[Edmond Zedo]

Let's assume this, say the rapture happens tomorrow, Zedo and I, on our way to hell will go, "We were wrong, logically God does exist." You on the otherhand will be sitting there going, "This isn't happening, God is alogical."
lol

[mgb]

I just did in my post before the last one. You weren't reading it, apparently.

No I read it, and it was more of you talking out of your ass. You made an assertion that logic was man made. You didn't back it up with anything.

[MacGuffin]

Your conclusion is that alogic exists because we can't prove it doesn't.

Also that God is alogical because we can't logically prove that he exists or logically prove that he doesn't exist.

The word you are missing at the end of the second statement is "yet". What is missing to make a logical statement is facts. That doesn't put God in the realm of the alogical, it puts him in the realm of the unknown.

Until we can prove he exists we have to assume belief in him is illogical, not alogical.

Let's assume this, say the rapture happens tomorrow, Zedo and I, on our way to hell will go, "We were wrong, logically God does exist." You on the otherhand will be sitting there going, "This isn't happening, God is alogical."

Now if the rapture never happens, we can go, "Belief in God is illogical."Once again you missed the point. Something can be alogical and then become logical. Once we have the tools to prove or disprove.

I am not arguing for the existence of alogic. It is a premise. A pretty common one.

And you don't assume something to be illogical, you have to prove it. You are falling into argumentum ad ignorantiam.


argumentum ad ignorantiam ("arguing from ignorance") --- A fallacy that occurs when someone argues that because we don't know something is true, it must be false, or because we lack proof that a statement is false, it must be true. Ignorance or lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean a position or claim is true or false. Common Examples: "No one has ever proven that UFOs exist. Therefore, they don't exist." (Something can exist despite the absence of confirmation. Lack of proof is justification for caution or even scepticism, but not dogmatic assertions.) "There is simply no proof that God exists. Therefore, God doesn't exist." (God might exist even though there is no way empirically to prove it.) http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm#ignorantiam

[booyalab]

Well, when one accuses me of "twisting" things and regresses to becoming emotional and swearing when responding, I feel inclined to talk down to them, as they are losing sight of the debate and letting irrational emotions get ahold of them.

To me this is usually a sign of frustration because either a.) that person knows they are wrong and can't admit it; or b.) that person cannot intelligently communicate the message or point they are trying to make.

So if you don't want to be patronized, don't behave childishly.

Cheer up, we're all wrong sometimes.

What basis do you have that I was being emotional? (Surely not a logical one) I get into the heat of a debate, but I wont "regress" unless the other person initiates it. I swore once in a post with you and it wasn't AT you, if that one instance of swearing and the capital letters to emphasize words (which I dont reserve exclusively for you) are enough to start patronizing me, I think you're the one who's being childish. I'm sorry I thought you knew you had initiated a lot of the 'tone' that you perceive. I'm only pissed off now, as I have to go back through your posts to text-proof my point.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56863&postcount=365

This first indicated to me that you have some weird emotional connection to logic, by agreeing with pintpi's rant...but I wouldn't and didn't say anything directly to you about it at the time.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56884&postcount=372

This is the first of many posts where you say we're illogical without actually showing us our fallacies. If someone's not being fallacious, they're not being illogical.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56951&postcount=407

You accuse both sides of being illogical for reaching a conclusion, but obviously if logic can't be used to reach either one out of 2 possible conclusions, it's of no use (back to relevance...and note it's irrelevant to THAT issue, "at our present understanding").

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56965&postcount=418

ahhh, this must have been among the pages I missed. Well your definitions are incomplete and the connection is even moreso. Illogical means that a conclusion doesn't follow from a premise and nothing more. If there is no premise and no conclusion,or not within a logical framework...example: weoijsobjuwoeibjw oigjwoei0235832096, it's alogical.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56982&postcount=431

getting emotional are we?


I could go on but I'm bored of this now.

[CreativeChaos]

You know the fact that this thread is getting more posts and more views than my very popular Mardi Gras thread with all the pretty girls and guys and stuff is... :huh:

[booyalab]

You know the fact that this thread is getting more posts and more views than my very popular Mardi Gras thread with all the pretty girls and guys and stuff is... :huh:
most of them were fat/weird/ambiguously gendered

[MacGuffin]

You know the fact that this thread is getting more posts and more views than my very popular Mardi Gras thread with all the pretty girls and guys and stuff is... :huh:
That is why this is an INTP forum!

[Edmond Zedo]

You know the fact that this thread is getting more posts and more views than my very popular Mardi Gras thread with all the pretty girls and guys and stuff is... :huh:
Is WHAT?

[mgb]

Once again you missed the point. Something can be alogical and then become logical. Once we have the tools to prove or disprove.

I am not arguing for the existence of alogic. It is a premise. A pretty common one.

And you don't assume something to be illogical, you have to prove it. You are falling into argumentum ad ignorantiam.

http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm#ignorantiam

Ok, now we are talking.

So, some theologians will say that the Bible is proof of God's existance. For many of the same reasons songbird described as negatives. Written over a long time, blah blah blah.

Essentially, it is the word of God, passed through man into the book.

Also it is said that God is infallible.

So if something in the book is wrong, then it is proof that God does not exist and the book was in fact written by man with no help from God because there is no God.

[songbird36]

most of them were fat/weird/ambiguously gendered

Most of those fattie drag queens wouldn't know logic if they fell over it in a drunken stupor either...

But they were fun to watch!!

[CreativeChaos]

Is WHAT?

Oh well, I created a breif pause in all of this uh... :huh: Gee, I just don't know!

[songbird36]

Ok, now we are talking.

So, some theologians will say that the Bible is proof of God's existance. For many of the same reasons songbird described as negatives. Written over a long time, blah blah blah.

Essentially, it is the word of God, passed through man into the book.

Also it is said that God is infallible.

So if something in the book is wrong, then it is proof that God does not exist and the book was in fact written by man with no help from God because there is no God.

You *still* can't spell existence despite me correcting it for you many times.

QED.

[mgb]

You *still* can't spell existence despite me correcting it for you many times.

QED.

Wow, you win, everything. You corrected my spelling, who knew that would be the key to winning any argument?

[CreativeChaos]

Most of those fattie drag queens wouldn't know logic if they fell over it in a drunken stupor either...

But they were fun to watch!!

Oh Yeah! Then What's this!!!

http://forums.intpcentral.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=303

[booyalab]

Ok, now we are talking.



what the hell, I had been saying that exact thing for the past 10 pages and suddenly "now we're talking"?

I am so leaving this thread.

[booyalab]

Oh Yeah! Then What's this!!!

http://forums.intpcentral.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=303
nice musckles but, blech@long hair on guys

[Edmond Zedo]

You *still* can't spell existence despite me correcting it for you many times.

QED.
Red Herring alert #2! *lights, sounds, other goings on*

[CreativeChaos]

or this? Don't leave yet booyalab!!! Look at this!!!!


http://forums.intpcentral.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=304

[CreativeChaos]

How's that? Huh? No long hair!!!!

[songbird36]

Wow, you win, everything. You corrected my spelling, who knew that would be the key to winning any argument?

That's the first time I've heard you make a joke..and it was quite funny too.

Is Zedo giving you lessons?

[songbird36]

nice musckles but, blech@long hair on guys

This guy looks like Billy Connelly on a bad hair day...

[Geoff]

argumentum ad ignorantiam ("arguing from ignorance") --- A fallacy that occurs when someone argues that because we don't know something is true, it must be false, or because we lack proof that a statement is false, it must be true. Ignorance or lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean a position or claim is true or false. Common Examples: "No one has ever proven that UFOs exist. Therefore, they don't exist." (Something can exist despite the absence of confirmation. Lack of proof is justification for caution or even scepticism, but not dogmatic assertions.) "There is simply no proof that God exists. Therefore, God doesn't exist." (God might exist even though there is no way empirically to prove it.)

This example, argumentum ad ignorantium is where someone reaches an illogical conclusion because they lack the proof to reach a logical one (being that noone knows). It is merely bad logic, and not the misapplication of alogic.
The correct logical response is indeed "God might exist even though there is no way empirically to prove it". It is just bad science, it is like saying "I have not been told it has rained today, therefore I conclude it has not rained anywhere today".

Where does this take us? Simply that it is logical to believe a God may exist, logical to believe it may not, and probably illogical to believe it definitely does or does not. Agnosticism. And illogical to suggest that alogical arguments remove any need to apply logic. That is, if your mindset is a scientific one.

-Geoff

[CreativeChaos]

That is why this is an INTP forum!


Uhhhh... Yeah! :devil: My point exactly. Hee!

[CreativeChaos]

This guy looks like Billy Connelly on a bad hair day...

Okay, but what about the second guy?

[Geoff]

What basis do you have that I was being emotional? (Surely not a logical one) I get into the heat of a debate, but I wont "regress" unless the other person initiates it. I swore once in a post with you and it wasn't AT you, if that one instance of swearing and the capital letters to emphasize words (which I dont reserve exclusively for you) are enough to start patronizing me, I think you're the one who's being childish. I'm sorry I thought you knew you had initiated a lot of the 'tone' that you perceive. I'm only pissed off now, as I have to go back through your posts to text-proof my point.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56863&postcount=365

This first indicated to me that you have some weird emotional connection to logic, by agreeing with pintpi's rant...but I wouldn't and didn't say anything directly to you about it at the time.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56884&postcount=372

This is the first of many posts where you say we're illogical without actually showing us our fallacies. If someone's not being fallacious, they're not being illogical.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56951&postcount=407

You accuse both sides of being illogical for reaching a conclusion, but obviously if logic can't be used to reach either one out of 2 possible conclusions, it's of no use (back to relevance...and note it's irrelevant to THAT issue, "at our present understanding").

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56965&postcount=418

ahhh, this must have been among the pages I missed. Well your definitions are incomplete and the connection is even moreso. Illogical means that a conclusion doesn't follow from a premise and nothing more. If there is no premise and no conclusion,or not within a logical framework...example: weoijsobjuwoeibjw oigjwoei0235832096, it's alogical.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56982&postcount=431

getting emotional are we?


I could go on but I'm bored of this now.


Not intending to be inflammatory (put the asbestos overcoat on Geoff) but it certainly sounded like you were getting emotional and a bit pissed off. You might not have been but I dont think you can be surprised that someone read it that way.

-Geoff

[songbird36]

This example, argumentum ad ignorantium is where someone reaches an illogical conclusion because they lack the proof to reach a logical one (being that noone knows). It is merely bad logic, and not the misapplication of alogic.
The correct logical response is indeed "God might exist even though there is no way empirically to prove it". It is just bad science, it is like saying "I have not been told it has rained today, therefore I conclude it has not rained anywhere today".

Where does this take us? Simply that it is logical to believe a God may exist, logical to believe it may not, and probably illogical to believe it definitely does or does not. Agnosticism. And illogical to suggest that alogical arguments remove any need to apply logic. That is, if your mindset is a scientific one.

-Geoff

You're way too diplomatic to be on this thread Geoff.

You lack the requisite vitriol...

[Phenylethylene]

Not intending to be inflammatory (put the asbestos overcoat on Geoff) but it certainly sounded like you were getting emotional and a bit pissed off. You might not have been but I dont think you can be surprised that someone read it that way.

-Geoff

Seconded.

[Geoff]

You're way too diplomatic to be on this thread Geoff.

You lack the requisite vitriol...

Bah, pardon me for a reasoned and balanced response. Screw you :laser:

;)

-Geoff

[songbird36]

Bah, pardon me for a reasoned and balanced response. Screw you :laser:

;)

-Geoff

I think you're labouring under a terrible misapprehension that the purpose of this forum is to have sensible, balanced and well reasoned debate...

[Geoff]

Heh I never said it was sensible, or that my response was 'well' reasoned.

It would be very dull if it didnt descend in to some heated debates.. but err 85 pages later it is nearly a full time job to keep up with the childish bickering..

-Geoff

[CreativeChaos]

Bah, pardon me for a reasoned and balanced response. Screw you :laser:

;)

-Geoff

Yeayy!!! does this mean we get to have fun now?

I totally agree with your last statement, Geoff. Very good summary.

[songbird36]

Heh I never said it was sensible, or that my response was 'well' reasoned.

It would be very dull if it didnt descend in to some heated debates.. but err 85 pages later it is nearly a full time job to keep up with the childish bickering..

-Geoff

What's your charge out rate?

Mine's too high for this thread, too..

[Ascending]

I think I'm adding Geoff to my favored members thread. Reasonable is refreshing amid such.





Originally Posted by Ascending
No, I believe I came up with this. I've never read "Evidences for the Christian Faith"

I did not mean in that there is faith at the end in and of itself. That would be silly, the point I am making is that it seems that you must have some degree of faith (not even nessisarly in God) to support anything.

By the way in response to the Christians on this thread who have just made posts arguing that the only thing we Christians can fall back on is faith, I think you may as well admit that you have lost the argument on this thread.

It is *not* helpful to argue for the existence of God using faith; you won't convince anyone here (myself included).

I have not written any such posts arguing that the only thing Christians can fall back on is faith.

Do not mistake my motive. I do not post in order to prove myself correct and bolster my own ego. I post in attempt to clairfy what is true.

In life one does well to truely examine their own motives.

[Geoff]

What's your charge out rate?

Mine's too high for this thread, too..

Heh, well it is 10:55pm here in the UK (yesterday to you I guess). So even on a busy day I am not at risk of damaging my timesheet at this time of night.

Normally my basic charge at £150-200 per hour which is $250-400 US or so. I'm "A Bargain" for a reasoned discussion on some intricate tax planning issue ;)

More when I am doing something interesting, like working out whether my clients can have a tax deduction for believing in God.

-Geoff

[songbird36]

Heh, well it is 10:55pm here in the UK (yesterday to you I guess). So even on a busy day I am not at risk of damaging my timesheet at this time of night.

Normally my basic charge at £150-200 per hour which is $250-400 US or so. I'm "A Bargain" for a reasoned discussion on some intricate tax planning issue ;)

More when I am doing something interesting, like working out whether my clients can have a tax deduction for believing in God.

-Geoff

Geez I couldn't afford you Geoff.

Think I'll have to stick to doing my own taxes (given that they're as certain as death, according to Twain)..

[pintpi]

Anyways, way, way back about 30 or 40 pages ago, my contention was that an agnostic POV was more logical (sensible) than atheist. My primary point was that an agnostic has taken the time to actually analyze the subject matter to conclude a rational, logical assumption, which is agnostic. Atheists on the other hand, simply take the opposite viewpoint from believers in god, without further analysis. A perfect example of this was pintpi’s post, in which he countered this claim, yet his example of why he was atheist was actually the definition of an agnostic!

My conclusion is that most logical, sensible people that claim to be atheist are actually agnostics, but for some reason are afraid to call themselves that. Yet it makes more sense. Logically.
I believe you are refering to your post (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56979&postcount=428) quoted below.

Atheist - someone who denies the existence of god.

Agnostic - a person who believes that, at our present level of knowledge, we cannot know whether or not a God exists.

You decide. From your argument above, sounds like you fall into the agnostic camp. Agnostic is a more logical definition of atheist. Atheist is too abrupt, it leaves no room for doubt or possibilities of future discovery. Not sure how that definition of agnostic can be construed as redundant; instead, the definition of agnostic sounds suspiciously similar to your above argument. Not redundant - better defined.
I'll reword your definition of atheist to make it a bit clearer.

Atheist - someone that knows a God does not exist

What I am saying in the post you responded to was that, to know, is just to say given current evidence I know a God doesn't exist.

I agree with you that we can't know with absolute certainty if a God exists or not but that does not prevent us from knowing (using the more scientific definition of the word, without the implication of absolute knowledge). We do this just by analysing current knowledge and making an informed decision on the existence of God. This is not to say that sometime in the future we won't find new evidence that makes the existence of a God likely. This is how science works, it doesn't claim any absolutes, it knows all scientific claims are tentative but it does recongnize we can still know things.

There are two Agnostic position that I would like to point out. I think these are the major agnostic positions but if you have another bring it up and I will tear it apart as well.

1) Agnostic - Can't know if God exists or not because we don't have enough evidence

2) Agnostic - Can't know if God exists or not because we can't have absolute knowledge

Looking at 1, this is a logical position but it is admitting ignorance. I don't know how much evidence these type of agnostics would need but I know I have enough evidence to make a decision. We have all made decisions on the existence of many things with far less available evidence. For example, UFOs, ghosts, bigfoot, psychic ability, etc... It may just be these people haven't analysed enough of the available evidence but they should be able to see that the atheist may have analysed enough evidence to make an decision on the issue and thus wouldn't claim the atheist position is illogical.

Looking at 2, this is an illogical position as you either have to then claim we can't ever know anything, as it is a generallly excepted fact that we can't have absolute knowledge of anything or God is a special case, to know if God exists or not we need absolute knowledge but for everything else we just need the regular kind of knowledge. Neither of those seems to be terribly useful positions to me as the first we can't know anything so we might as well just quite doing any science and remove the words know and knowledge from our vocabulary. The second is a completely arbitrary distinction. Why is God a special case, why is absolute knowledge required to prove his existence or not?

Agnostics often claim the atheist position is the illogical one but I think clearly they haven't examined what it truely means when we say we have knowledge of the existence of something.

[Geoff]

Songbird wrote :

Geez I couldn't afford you Geoff.

Think I'll have to stick to doing my own taxes (given that they're as certain as death, according to Twain)..


Yes, Death and Taxes both. I work in the Corporate arena, so it is probably unlikely I would be filling out a tax return for an individual. I dont tend to do compliance. I would indeed be too expensive for that here too. But I might be reviewing someone else's completion of one, so as I can be coming up with some insightful new plan for saving them money... which is good value.

New Zealand is a hugely useful destination for a UK person wanting to save money, because of the terms of the UK/NZ double tax treaty and its lack of capital gains tax.
I keep hoping to wing a free trip out to research it further ;)

Oh, and err logic, God and things.

Edit : how much do your legal services cost?

-Geoff

[Ascending]

If you would be so kind as to read and consider I will show the main frustration of this thread. Communication Breakdown.


I believe I know the main reason for the communication gap in the definiton of logic. Forgive any inconsistancys as I am building this to understand it better myself in the true INTP fashion. If I'm full of it please let me know. I'm sure Orange will. http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Songbird is refering to the definition of logic as a human tool to understanding. That is the use of reason by people to understand.

Mgbradsh (and others) is refering to logic as the deterministic world view where every effect has a cause. That nothing happens without a cause, as subtle as that cause may be.

Therefore when Songbird says alogical she means that it is beyond our current ablity/capacity to understand. Logic can not be applied to reach an outcome (by us).

From Mgbradsh's definiton that does not hold up because from his view logic is not our understanding but simply things progressing in an (although not nessisarly to us) explainable manner.

Logic is not the same as cause and effect in the natural world.

Cause and effect may (and often does) follow logical principles but, a logic system can operate outside the scope of anything which exists in reality.

In other words, we can construct a perfectly logical argument based on completely false premises which (if they logically link together) will dictate a particular conclusion. I came up with an example on this thread a few days ago.

Thus logic is a human construction, not a natural phenomenon.I draw attention to the last line. Words are made by humans, their meanings are not things which can definitivly be said. Even the same language differs per region and time. Otherwise there would be no need for Webster to release new editons. Dictionarys themselves support this as I am sure you have seen that most things have multiple definitons.

The fuel the the fire that is this thread is that both partys are refering to different things! This was explained in my quoted post above. Songbird means Human Logical reasoning and the others are refering to logic as the deterministic world view where every effect has a cause.

[Geoff]

I believe you are refering to your post (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56979&postcount=428) quoted below.

I'll reword your definition of atheist to make it a bit clearer.

Atheist - someone that knows a God does not exist

What I am saying in the post you responded to was that, to know, is just to say given current evidence I know a God doesn't exist.

I agree with you that we can't know with absolute certainty if a God exists or not but that does not prevent us from knowing (using the more scientific definition of the word, without the implication of absolute knowledge). We do this just by analysing current knowledge and making an informed decision on the existence of God. This is not to say that sometime in the future we won't find new evidence that makes the existence of a God likely. This is how science works, it doesn't claim any absolutes, it knows all scientific claims are tentative but it does recongnize we can still know things.

There are two Agnostic position that I would like to point out. I think these are the major agnostic positions but if you have another bring it up and I will tear it apart as well.

1) Agnostic - Can't know if God exists or not because we don't have enough evidence

2) Agnostic - Can't know if God exists or not because we can't have absolute knowledge

Looking at 1, this is a logical position but it is admitting ignorance. I don't know how much evidence these type of agnostics would need but I know I have enough evidence to make a decision. We have all made decisions on the existence of many things with far less available evidence. For example, UFOs, ghosts, bigfoot, psychic ability, etc... It may just be these people haven't analysed enough of the available evidence but they should be able to see that the atheist may have analysed enough evidence to make an decision on the issue and thus wouldn't claim the atheist position is illogical.

I disagree that option 1 is such a bad one. If we dont have enough evidence to yet make a decision then it is a theory (even laws are only accepted theories after all). If a theory is so basic that it doesnt even answer the question then a reasonable summary is 'we dont know yet'. I fully support people who say there is not enough evidence either way for them to decide. Myself, I have firmly decided there is no God on the basis of the available evidence, but I can see that 1) is right depending upon your logical process.

To a certain extent God is like light (both a wave and a particle) hiding in Schrodingers Box. Until we have a method for opening the box we wont be able to determine whether he exists or not. The belief of God therefore follows Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle of sorts.. he both exists and does not exist as like opening Schrodingers box to look at the cat, the act of measuring the existence of God might bring him in or out of existence.

At least, so I think at this moment in time ;)

-Geoff

[Ascending]

I think you're labouring under a terrible misapprehension that the purpose of this forum is to have sensible, balanced and well reasoned debate...
I had thought just the reverse. The rest of the world is full of unbalanced unsensible and poorly reasoned people. I believed this would be a haven.

[Geoff]

I had thought just the reverse. The rest of the world is full of unbalanced unsensible and poorly reasoned people. I believed this would be a haven.

You didnt need to take Songbird so literally, it was clearly sarcasm at my perceived distress at all this bickering...

-Geoff

[pintpi]

I disagree that option 1 is such a bad one. If we dont have enough evidence to yet make a decision then it is a theory (even laws are only accepted theories after all). If a theory is so basic that it doesnt even answer the question then a reasonable summary is 'we dont know yet'. I fully support people who say there is not enough evidence either way for them to decide. Myself, I have firmly decided there is no God on the basis of the available evidence, but I can see that 1) is right depending upon your logical process.
I didn't mean to imply that the first one was "bad". I did say it is a logic position and I have no problem with anyone holding it. I was just pointing out that someone holding that position can't claim the atheist position to be illogical because they can see a day when they might have enough evidence to make an informed decision and by extension see that an atheist might already have enough to make a decision. At that point the arguments get into who has more evidence not which position is more logical.

[cjs55]

The fuel the the fire that is this thread is that both partys are refering to different things! This was explained in my quoted post above. Songbird means Human Logical reasoning and the others are refering to logic as the deterministic world view where every effect has a cause.

Yeah I agree Ascending, I just never had the energy to actual confront that difference.

And look how many pages have been wasted on it!

[Geoff]

I didn't mean to imply that the first one was "bad". I did say it is a logic position and I have no problem with anyone holding it. I was just pointing out that someone holding that position can't claim the atheist position to be illogical because they can see a day when they might have enough evidence to make an informed decision and by extension see that an atheist might already have enough to make a decision. At that point the arguments get into who has more evidence not which position is more logical.

Ah ok, my bad interpretation. Thanks for clarification.

-Geoff

[songbird36]

Yes, Death and Taxes both. I work in the Corporate arena, so it is probably unlikely I would be filling out a tax return for an individual. I dont tend to do compliance. I would indeed be too expensive for that here too. But I might be reviewing someone else's completion of one, so as I can be coming up with some insightful new plan for saving them money... which is good value.

New Zealand is a hugely useful destination for a UK person wanting to save money, because of the terms of the UK/NZ double tax treaty and its lack of capital gains tax.
I keep hoping to wing a free trip out to research it further ;)

Oh, and err logic, God and things.

Edit : how much do your legal services cost?

-Geoff

$130 an hour (GST incl). That's pretty reasonable really, but it's about the going rate in my area, and I'm a sole practitioner so my overheads are very low.

[songbird36]

Yeah I agree Ascending, I just never had the energy to actual confront that difference.

And look how many pages have been wasted on it!

Why don't we get all of this bound up into a book and submit it to a publisher?

Then the publisher's editor could sort out the crap from the real argument...

[Geoff]

$130 an hour (GST incl). That's pretty reasonable really, but it's about the going rate in my area, and I'm a sole practitioner so my overheads are very low.

Wow, I'll bear that in mind next time some thorny New Zealand legal issue comes up.. tends to happen a couple of times a year.

Of course, if I was a sole practitioner, I suspect my rate would be 2/3 or so. at most.

-Geoff

[Eileen]

I should clarify that while theism itself can't be disproven, so much of the Holy Bible has been disproven scientifically that it's a joke to believe it.


To be fair, the Holy Bible is not, and never was meant to, be a work of scientific or even historical literal fact. The first NT scholar Origen emphasized that it was HERESY (!!!) to read the Bible merely "by the flesh" (that is to say literally). It is meant to be read "by the soul" (morally) and "by the spirit" (metaphor/allegory). Origen--in the second century, I believe--even cited the seven-day creation story as something that no reasonable man would believe. And there we have our little-known Church History lesson for the day.

That said, I have plenty of problems with the Bible, even knowing this... Mostly, I guess, I take issue with how it's used by people who subscribe to sola scriptura, this idea that the Bible is all you need to learn about God. I converted from Lutheranism for this reason, because I think that scripture is useful, but it leaves plenty of questions completely unaddressed. The Episcopal Church has this concept of a three-legged stool upon which we can stand to learn about God--scripture, tradition (the rituals, the early church fathers, other theologians etc), and experience (which includes reason, incidentally, which the Methodists eventually separated from experience in a similar four-sided concept).

Anyway, I'm pretty well over this thread and discussion (I've been introduced to alogic as an idea, which is contestable but useful for me while I think--I shall not ever assert that faith is logical again). It amazes me, some humans' abilities to rehash the same argument for about seventeen billion years. However--interesting tidbits have come that I will process and talk with other people about--such as how introverted intuition affects one's tendency to be faithful or spiritual.


Aaaaand I do believe that I am off--devastating, huh?! I have about seventeen billion papers to grade and record, not to mention lesson plans to write. It sure is easy to get sucked into the internet and totally shirk one's duties as a professional...

[Geoff]

Why don't we get all of this bound up into a book and submit it to a publisher?

Then the publisher's editor could sort out the crap from the real argument...

That's so 'J'. We like it disorganised!

-Geoff

[mgb]

$130 an hour (GST incl). That's pretty reasonable really, but it's about the going rate in my area, and I'm a sole practitioner so my overheads are very low.

You seem to be spending a lot of time on here, I am guessing you are charging way to much.

[songbird36]

You seem to be spending a lot of time on here, I am guessing you are charging way to much.

If you continue to obfuscate incessantly I might start charging you!

[Edmond Zedo]

To be fair, the Holy Bible is not, and never was meant to, be a work of scientific or even historical literal fact. The first NT scholar Origen emphasized that it was HERESY (!!!) to read the Bible merely "by the flesh" (that is to say literally). It is meant to be read "by the soul" (morally) and "by the spirit" (metaphor/allegory). Origen--in the second century, I believe--even cited the seven-day creation story as something that no reasonable man would believe. And there we have our little-known Church History lesson for the day.
Tell the 900 million (?) creationists that. Please.

[mgb]

If you continue to obfuscate incessantly I might start charging you!

The cheque will be in the mail.

[Eileen]

Tell the 900 million (?) creationists that. Please.

I'm on it.

[Dman]

What basis do you have that I was being emotional? (Surely not a logical one) I get into the heat of a debate, but I wont "regress" unless the other person initiates it. I swore once in a post with you and it wasn't AT you, if that one instance of swearing and the capital letters to emphasize words (which I dont reserve exclusively for you) are enough to start patronizing me, I think you're the one who's being childish. I'm sorry I thought you knew you had initiated a lot of the 'tone' that you perceive. I'm only pissed off now, as I have to go back through your posts to text-proof my point.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56863&postcount=365

This first indicated to me that you have some weird emotional connection to logic, by agreeing with pintpi's rant...but I wouldn't and didn't say anything directly to you about it at the time.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56884&postcount=372

This is the first of many posts where you say we're illogical without actually showing us our fallacies. If someone's not being fallacious, they're not being illogical.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56951&postcount=407

You accuse both sides of being illogical for reaching a conclusion, but obviously if logic can't be used to reach either one out of 2 possible conclusions, it's of no use (back to relevance...and note it's irrelevant to THAT issue, "at our present understanding").

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56965&postcount=418

ahhh, this must have been among the pages I missed. Well your definitions are incomplete and the connection is even moreso. Illogical means that a conclusion doesn't follow from a premise and nothing more. If there is no premise and no conclusion,or not within a logical framework...example: weoijsobjuwoeibjw oigjwoei0235832096, it's alogical.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56982&postcount=431

getting emotional are we?


I could go on but I'm bored of this now.

Ahhh – a challenge! Bring it on!

Actually I was hoping we could all avoid having the topic take a turn for the worse, which it seems to be doing, but…what the hell, it’s fun!

I haven’t the time or energy to go back and analyze all the links and everything in your post (I must admit I’m impressed that you did) but I will attempt to at some point. So far hasn’t been too terribly difficult to refute.

For now, let’s just say, um… you’re female, right? And I’m male… so obviously the “logical” thing for me to say at this point is “yes dear, your right”.

[CreativeChaos]

Uhhh... Geoff! How much do you charge for Hot British Accent calls? :wub:

[Dman]

Seconded.

You guys are pissing me off!

You're hurting my damn feelings!

[Phenylethylene]

You guys are pissing me off!

You're hurting my damn feelings!

That was directed at booyalab.

[Dman]

I believe you are refering to your post (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56979&postcount=428) quoted below.

I'll reword your definition of atheist to make it a bit clearer.

Atheist - someone that knows a God does not exist

What I am saying in the post you responded to was that, to know, is just to say given current evidence I know a God doesn't exist.

I agree with you that we can't know with absolute certainty if a God exists or not but that does not prevent us from knowing (using the more scientific definition of the word, without the implication of absolute knowledge). We do this just by analysing current knowledge and making an informed decision on the existence of God. This is not to say that sometime in the future we won't find new evidence that makes the existence of a God likely. This is how science works, it doesn't claim any absolutes, it knows all scientific claims are tentative but it does recongnize we can still know things.

There are two Agnostic position that I would like to point out. I think these are the major agnostic positions but if you have another bring it up and I will tear it apart as well.

1) Agnostic - Can't know if God exists or not because we don't have enough evidence

2) Agnostic - Can't know if God exists or not because we can't have absolute knowledge

Looking at 1, this is a logical position but it is admitting ignorance. I don't know how much evidence these type of agnostics would need but I know I have enough evidence to make a decision. We have all made decisions on the existence of many things with far less available evidence. For example, UFOs, ghosts, bigfoot, psychic ability, etc... It may just be these people haven't analysed enough of the available evidence but they should be able to see that the atheist may have analysed enough evidence to make an decision on the issue and thus wouldn't claim the atheist position is illogical.

Looking at 2, this is an illogical position as you either have to then claim we can't ever know anything, as it is a generallly excepted fact that we can't have absolute knowledge of anything or God is a special case, to know if God exists or not we need absolute knowledge but for everything else we just need the regular kind of knowledge. Neither of those seems to be terribly useful positions to me as the first we can't know anything so we might as well just quite doing any science and remove the words know and knowledge from our vocabulary. The second is a completely arbitrary distinction. Why is God a special case, why is absolute knowledge required to prove his existence or not?

Agnostics often claim the atheist position is the illogical one but I think clearly they haven't examined what it truely means when we say we have knowledge of the existence of something.

Uh-oh, now we're getting into different definitions WITHIN the meaning of agnostic...

Well, I had a hand in opening the can of worms, so I'll back up mgbradsh's point of adding "yet" to the end of definition number 1. Sure, there are different camps within "agnostic", as in those who are inclined to lean to number 2 above, which I don't buy into.

You stated that you don’t have current evidence that god exists, so you don’t believe he does, until such evidence may exist. IMO, that falls into the definition of agnostic, not atheist.

HOWEVER, the line between atheist and agnostic can and certainly does get blurred. So I suppose I need to back up my argument with the assumptions I’m making:

By atheist, I am referring to a “hard” atheist, one who completely refutes the existence of god or the possibility of a god. In my opinion, and experience, most people who say they are atheist fall into this group.

By agnostic, I am referring to one who believes that given current evidence, we do not have enough evidence to prove there is no god, but we also cannot rule out the possibility that there is a god that has thus far been able to successfully elude conclusive evidence of detection.

So we can probably conclude that you and I at least closely think of it the same way. The difference being you have made a judgement that due to the lack of evidence, you find it highly improbable that god exists, although still remotely possible. I can’t argue with that.

[songbird36]

Ahhh – a challenge! Bring it on!

For now, let’s just say, um… you’re female, right? And I’m male… so obviously the “logical” thing for me to say at this point is “yes dear, your right”.

Q: What do you call a man with half a brain?
A: Gifted

[CreativeChaos]

Gee, I wonder if INTPs are less likely to be spiritual then. :devil:



:rofl:


:cheers:


:hug:


:wub:

[songbird36]

While browsing the Good Book this morning I was reminded of some lines from Psalm 131 that I think summarises the Zedo/Mgbradsh outlook on life very nicely:

Psalm 131 (lines 3 and 4)

pity they can't take cognizance of lines 5 and 6 as well...

[Edmond Zedo]

"Now I like that, but that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak, and I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd."

[CoHo]

While browsing the Good Book this morning...

In all honesty, do you seriously follow this book?

[songbird36]

"Now I like that, but that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak, and I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd."

"So here's to you Mrs Robinson, Jesus loves you more than you can know
oh ho ho
God bless you please Mrs Robinson, heaven holds a place for those who pray
eh he heh
eh heh heh"

[songbird36]

In all honesty, do you seriously follow this book?

Yes I keep slaves and believe in stoning to death for adultery....

[CoHo]

Ok, do you believe in submitting yourself, living a humble life filled with humility and praise for your lor-duh?

[Edmond Zedo]

Yes I keep slaves and believe in stoning to death for adultery....
I tried to stone myself to death once. Didn't work; was fun.

[Ascending]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascending
I had thought just the reverse. The rest of the world is full of unbalanced unsensible and poorly reasoned people. I believed this would be a haven.



You didnt need to take Songbird so literally, it was clearly sarcasm at my perceived distress at all this bickering...

As I perceived, however the gist of this thread tends to agree with the statement. I was looking for new ideas, yet because of not being willing to agree on a definiton there have been many pages of redundant posts and people not paying attention to what the other has said. In any case...

Don't worry, be happy.. la la lalala la. :whistle:

[Ascending]

Saved by INTP? It seems we've gotten so far off topic that I wonder if the flame will reignite.

[MacGuffin]

This example, argumentum ad ignorantium is where someone reaches an illogical conclusion because they lack the proof to reach a logical one (being that noone knows). It is merely bad logic, and not the misapplication of alogic.
The correct logical response is indeed "God might exist even though there is no way empirically to prove it". It is just bad science, it is like saying "I have not been told it has rained today, therefore I conclude it has not rained anywhere today".

Where does this take us? Simply that it is logical to believe a God may exist, logical to believe it may not, and probably illogical to believe it definitely does or does not. Agnosticism. And illogical to suggest that alogical arguments remove any need to apply logic. That is, if your mindset is a scientific one.

-Geoff
Yes, excellent. The only logical conclusion to come to at present is agnosticism.

[Sackanaka]

holy hell when did it get to page 89? And only to end with a not-as-tentative-as-it-seems-
The only logical conclusion to come to at present is agnosticism.
and I wonder why more people discuss on this than on my earlier posts... :'(
jk

[mgb]

While browsing the Good Book this morning I was reminded of some lines from Psalm 131 that I think summarises the Zedo/Mgbradsh outlook on life very nicely:

Psalm 131 (lines 3 and 4)

pity they can't take cognizance of lines 5 and 6 as well...

Pity the second part of number 5 keeps happening to you.

To embelish Zedo:

"That's a pretty fucking good milkshake. I don't know if it's worth five dollars but it's pretty fucking good."

[mgb]

Ok, do you believe in submitting yourself, living a humble life filled with humility and praise for your lor-duh?

*hands in the air*

ohh-uh, preach on-uh

[joft]

God thinks all blacks are obsolete farm eqipment
God thinks the Jews killed his son and must be punished
God thinks the white man is Satan
God, they know what God thinks

God thinks we should all convert to Judaism
God thinks we must all be Christians and
God thinks we should all embrace Islam
God thinks the only true religion is Hinduism

And I
I know what God thinks
God thinks you're a waste of flesh
God prefers an Atheist

God thinks all people like you are evil
God thinks all people like you are an embarassment to creation
self-righteous, judgemental, first to throw the stone
and use His name for your own protection

God thinks the sun revolves around the Earth
God thinks there was something very wrong with Copernicus
God thinks abortion is murder and
God thinks everything that science gave us is wrong
God thinks women deserve it
God thinks AIDS is a form of punishment

I hate people who blame the Devil for their own shortcomings and
I hate people who thank God when things go right

And I
I know what God thinks
God thinks you're an idiot
God prefers a heretic

God God
God thinks all people like you are evil
God thinks all people like you are an embarassment to creation
self-righteous, judgemental, first to throw the stone
and use His name for your own agenda

God is a liberal
God is a democrat
God wants you to vote republican
never trust a man who puts his words in the mouth of god
and says that it's absolute truth
its lies and it smells like death
its all in a day's work taking money from the poor
Why do you think that God would need your dirty money
if he wanted to start a holy war?

self-righteous, judgemental, first to throw the stone
and use His name for your own protection

God thinks puppies need to die and
God thinks babies need to drown
'cause God is neither good nor bad
God is you and me
God is Everything

[CreativeChaos]

"So here's to you Mrs Robinson, Jesus loves you more than you can know
oh ho ho
God bless you please Mrs Robinson, heaven holds a place for those who pray
eh he heh
eh heh heh"

Thankieee Songbird! :wub:

[CreativeChaos]

I tried to stone myself to death once. Didn't work; was fun.

Yes, but have you commited adultry?

[Dman]

* still patiently waiting for a clear example of "alogical" *

[Dman]

What basis do you have that I was being emotional? (Surely not a logical one) I get into the heat of a debate, but I wont "regress" unless the other person initiates it. I swore once in a post with you and it wasn't AT you, if that one instance of swearing and the capital letters to emphasize words (which I dont reserve exclusively for you) are enough to start patronizing me, I think you're the one who's being childish. I'm sorry I thought you knew you had initiated a lot of the 'tone' that you perceive. I'm only pissed off now, as I have to go back through your posts to text-proof my point.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56863&postcount=365

This first indicated to me that you have some weird emotional connection to logic, by agreeing with pintpi's rant...but I wouldn't and didn't say anything directly to you about it at the time.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56884&postcount=372

This is the first of many posts where you say we're illogical without actually showing us our fallacies. If someone's not being fallacious, they're not being illogical.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56951&postcount=407

You accuse both sides of being illogical for reaching a conclusion, but obviously if logic can't be used to reach either one out of 2 possible conclusions, it's of no use (back to relevance...and note it's irrelevant to THAT issue, "at our present understanding").

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56965&postcount=418

ahhh, this must have been among the pages I missed. Well your definitions are incomplete and the connection is even moreso. Illogical means that a conclusion doesn't follow from a premise and nothing more. If there is no premise and no conclusion,or not within a logical framework...example: weoijsobjuwoeibjw oigjwoei0235832096, it's alogical.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=56982&postcount=431

getting emotional are we?


I could go on but I'm bored of this now.

Ok, I thought about this for a minute, and decided that the reason you went to these lengths to create this post is evidence that I indeed touched a nerve, particularly by my knowledgeable conclusion that you know I am correct and you are so frustrated you have abandoned the topic in favor of personal attacks. Hiiiiyaaahh! To which I myself have also sunken to the same level. Great, thanks a lot.

Now, back to the main topic - About the rest of this thread, as for the whining about how this thread has become redundant, meaningless, bickering and pointless, perhaps you all can shed your enlightened brilliance upon us simpleton bickerers rather than simply adding to the already worn out thing by making posts that have no value, while claiming there are too many posts that have no value.

In the meantime, I'm still waiting for that example of alogical.

I'm also starting to think that this is what a thread looks like when people lose an argument, and know it, but can't admit it. Hence it goes on and on, repeating over and over, degenerating into personal attacks, rambling, posts from those who have nothing to add but think they do, etc. (like this one)

[Phenylethylene]

I'm also starting to think that this is what a thread looks like when people lose an argument, and know it, but can't admit it. Hence it goes on and on, repeating over and over, degenerating into personal attacks, rambling, posts from those who have nothing to add but think they do, etc. (like this one)


Me too, kinda... Every time I think everyone might be on the same chapter (I never had hopes for the same page), the whole thing starts all over again. I think too many people want to "win" the debate and most of them think they are winning. I don't, and never did, think this debate was winnable in a traditional sense, but I did think most people would more or less gain some understanding about how other people interpret the universe. Instead, some people seem to be more focused on convincing the other side is wrong than in trying to understand where they are coming from.

[mgb]

Me too, kinda... Every time I think everyone might be on the same chapter (I never had hopes for the same page), the whole thing starts all over again. I think too many people want to "win" the debate and most of them think they are winning. I don't, and never did, think this debate was winnable in a traditional sense, but I did think most people would more or less gain some understanding about how other people interpret the universe. Instead, some people seem to be more focused on convincing the other side is wrong than in trying to understand where they are coming from.

This stuff should have it's own thread.

To be honest, for me, it's not really about winning or losing. It's just been fun. I'd like to say it's been more eye-opening, but I've heard a lot of this stuff before, from both sides. The logic exercise it has turned into has been fun though. Kind of exciting to see all the debating styles. But that's just me. Don't tell anyone that I don't care if I win or not, it's great being stubborn.

[Ascending]

Well then, whos up for drinks at the local pub?

http://forums.intpcentral.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8

Because I don't think any newcomers to the discussion will be willing to wade through 90 pages. ;)

[Geoff]

Q: What do you call a man with half a brain?
A: Gifted

Or...

A: Depends what her name is.

-Geoff

[MacGuffin]

* still patiently waiting for a clear example of "alogical" *God

[Thermo]

I know I am new here and I am not putting anyone down to be mean. However, I think there is more focus on childish name calling and repetition than actual debate.



Edmond Zedo:
My last response to this guy was....
"I laid out two clear logical arguments directed against your position. You have three choices. You can ignore it, you can repeat yourself again, or you can address the issues. If you chose either of the first two options, you obviously aren't interested in debate."

At which point he continued to be a broken record. I don't think you are really interested in debate, just shouting his opinion at people. Ironically, you have alot in common with the religious fanatics you have contempt for.



Dman:
"Are you serious?

And who said anything about having “faith” in logic?

You are misunderstanding the fundamentals of the argument here, and this thread moves too fast for me to take the time to explain it to you, although I would like to. Sorry."

I don't have to bother responding, because you did the work for me....

"Well, when one accuses me of "twisting" things and regresses to becoming emotional and swearing when responding, I feel inclined to talk down to them, as they are losing sight of the debate and letting irrational emotions get ahold of them.

To me this is usually a sign of frustration because either a.) that person knows they are wrong and can't admit it; or b.) that person cannot intelligently communicate the message or point they are trying to make.

So if you don't want to be patronized, don't behave childishly.

Cheer up, we're all wrong sometimes."




I will be honest with you, my belief in God is a very important part of who I am, but I am open to the possibility that athiesism or agnostism could be right or logically better. Debate requires listening and considering the other side's position.

This was in my first post in this thread on 02-14-2005, 09:48 PM
"If you can't prove there is no god and can't prove there is, then there is no right logical answer.. This means, logically, that anyone's guess is as good as anyone elses."

1.) I do not claim to logically know God exists. I have faith he exists, despite a lack of logical proof.
2.) If you cannot prove God does or doesn't exist, then any guess is possible.

Conclusions:
1.) Anyone who claims God exists is wrong.
2.) Anyone who claims God does not exist is wrong.

Why? Because it is currently impossible to know the actual answer.


This is the closest I have seen to a logical argument.
mgbradsh:
http://kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.php
"Mistaking Deductive Validity for Truth

This fallacy takes the form of assuming that because an argument is a logical syllogism, therefore the conclusion must be true. It ignores the possibility that the premises of the argument may be false.

Example: "I just read a book that proves that that book's author can do much better than any psychological test at finding out if someone is malingering. The book's author reviews the literature showing that no psychological test is perfect at identifying malingering. All have at least some false positives and false negatives. But the author has a new method of identifying malingerers. All he does is listen to the sound of their voice as they say a sentence or two. And he included in the book a chart showing that by using this method he has never been wrong in hundreds of cases. That proves his method is better than using psychological tests." "

If you look at my argument.
1.) I do not claim to logically know God exists.
2.) You claim to logically know he doesn't. Ironically, this looks very much like the fallacy you quoted.


On a related sidenote:
1.) Logic ultimately has to rest on some kind of faith or assumption, unless you can prove everything.
2.) It is impossible to say Logic is all encompassing, unless you can prove everything.

EDIT: I took out something I had in twice.

[Dman]

I know I am new here and I am not putting anyone down to be mean. However, I think there is more focus on childish name calling and repetition than actual debate.



Edmond Zedo:
My last response to this guy was....
"I laid out two clear logical arguments directed against your position. You have three choices. You can ignore it, you can repeat yourself again, or you can address the issues. If you chose either of the first two options, you obviously aren't interested in debate."

At which point he continued to be a broken record. I don't think you are really interested in debate, just shouting his opinion at people. Ironically, you have alot in common with the religious fanatics you have contempt for.



Dman:
"Are you serious?

And who said anything about having “faith” in logic?

You are misunderstanding the fundamentals of the argument here, and this thread moves too fast for me to take the time to explain it to you, although I would like to. Sorry."

I don't have to bother responding, because you did the work for me....

"Well, when one accuses me of "twisting" things and regresses to becoming emotional and swearing when responding, I feel inclined to talk down to them, as they are losing sight of the debate and letting irrational emotions get ahold of them.

To me this is usually a sign of frustration because either a.) that person knows they are wrong and can't admit it; or b.) that person cannot intelligently communicate the message or point they are trying to make.

So if you don't want to be patronized, don't behave childishly.

Cheer up, we're all wrong sometimes."




I will be honest with you, my belief in God is a very important part of who I am, but I am open to the possibility that athiesism or agnostism could be right or logically better. Debate requires listening and considering the other side's position.

This was in my first post in this thread on 02-14-2005, 09:48 PM
"If you can't prove there is no god and can't prove there is, then there is no right logical answer.. This means, logically, that anyone's guess is as good as anyone elses."

1.) I do not claim to logically know God exists. I have faith he exists, despite a lack of logical proof.
2.) If you cannot prove God does or doesn't exist, then any guess is possible.

Conclusions:
1.) Anyone who claims God exists is wrong.
2.) Anyone who claims God does not exist is wrong.

Why? Because it is currently impossible to know the actual answer.


This is the closest I have seen to a logical argument.
mgbradsh:
http://kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.php
"Mistaking Deductive Validity for Truth

This fallacy takes the form of assuming that because an argument is a logical syllogism, therefore the conclusion must be true. It ignores the possibility that the premises of the argument may be false.

Example: "I just read a book that proves that that book's author can do much better than any psychological test at finding out if someone is malingering. The book's author reviews the literature showing that no psychological test is perfect at identifying malingering. All have at least some false positives and false negatives. But the author has a new method of identifying malingerers. All he does is listen to the sound of their voice as they say a sentence or two. And he included in the book a chart showing that by using this method he has never been wrong in hundreds of cases. That proves his method is better than using psychological tests." "

If you look at my argument.
1.) I do not claim to logically know God exists.
2.) You claim to logically know he doesn't. Ironically, this looks very much like the fallacy you quoted.


On a related sidenote:
1.) Logic ultimately has to rest on some kind of faith or assumption, unless you can prove everything.
2.) It is impossible to say Logic is all encompassing, unless you can prove everything.

EDIT: I took out something I had in twice.

What? No childish name calling or patronizing?! No emotional outbursts or insistence on being right? What the hell is the matter with you?

Nah, it's all in good fun. It was a fun debate, until (some of us) lost sight of the original point. I'll admit the thread was moving so fast it made my head spin, especially when I'm trying to do my job at work at the same time. I’ll also admit that when it seems like things are slowing down I have a tendency to try pushing people’s buttons, saying things like “you know you’re wrong” etc. Yeah, it’s childish, but it gets the intended reaction. No hard feelings. People are more fun to argue with sometimes when they’re all fired up. Plus they’ll usually slip and say something silly, which can then be attacked ruthlessly. Unfortunately it cuts both ways.

I guess what I’m trying to say is, don’t feel bad if I’m right all the time. I don’t do it to hurt feelings, it’s just my natural state to be omnipotent.

Now that we’re done with that, I’d like to know of the believers in god here, did you reach that conclusion on your own, or were you raised to be religious? My assumption is that those who are raised to think this way are obviously more inclined to believe it is true than those who aren’t. A form of brainwashing, essentially. Thoughts?

[Thermo]

"What? No childish name calling or patronizing?! No emotional outbursts or insistence on being right? What the hell is the matter with you?

Nah, it's all in good fun. It was a fun debate, until (some of us) lost sight of the original point. I'll admit the thread was moving so fast it made my head spin, especially when I'm trying to do my job at work at the same time. I’ll also admit that when it seems like things are slowing down I have a tendency to try pushing people’s buttons, saying things like “you know you’re wrong” etc. Yeah, it’s childish, but it gets the intended reaction. No hard feelings. People are more fun to argue with sometimes when they’re all fired up. Plus they’ll usually slip and say something silly, which can then be attacked ruthlessly. Unfortunately it cuts both ways.

I guess what I’m trying to say is, don’t feel bad if I’m right all the time. I don’t do it to hurt feelings, it’s just my natural state to be omnipotent."

haha I can be an instigator, too.

"Now that we’re done with that, I’d like to know of the believers in god here, did you reach that conclusion on your own, or were you raised to be religious? My assumption is that those who are raised to think this way are obviously more inclined to believe it is true than those who aren’t. A form of brainwashing, essentially. Thoughts?"

Yes, I think if you are raised with faith or without it that can influence your decision.

I was raised Roman Catholic and bitterly resent it. The only thing that forced me to stay connected to chrisitianity were my mother and wife. My wife and I compromised on Lutheranism and it renewed my faith. I have always been fasinated by Jesus and I think that is part of why I agreed to remain christian. Ultimately, there was a great deal of soul searching in all this and I considered switching to Buddhism and Taoism.

[mgb]

I don't think things really get fun until there is a digression.

[Dman]

I don't think things really get fun until there is a digression.

Speaking of digressions, you should have a picture of the "feral kid" from The Road Warrior as your avatar.

[mgb]

Speaking of digressions, you should have a picture of the "feral kid" from The Road Warrior as your avatar.

That might be hard to find...he would have to have that silver boomerang too, and you guys might have to put up with grunts for a while so I can create the total effect :D

[Johnny]

Now that we’re done with that, I’d like to know of the believers in god here, did you reach that conclusion on your own, or were you raised to be religious? That's an interesting question. To be honest, I don't know.

[Edmond Zedo]

Yes, but have you commited adultry? Not that I'm aware of.

[songbird36]

Not that I'm aware of.

You have to be an adult to commit adultery.

*wink wink*

[Edmond Zedo]

Edmond Zedo:
My last response to this guy was....
"I laid out two clear logical arguments directed against your position. You have three choices. You can ignore it, you can repeat yourself again, or you can address the issues. If you chose either of the first two options, you obviously aren't interested in debate."

At which point he continued to be a broken record. I don't think you are really interested in debate, just shouting his opinion at people. Ironically, you have alot in common with the religious fanatics you have contempt for.


Conclusions:
1.) Anyone who claims God exists is wrong.
2.) Anyone who claims God does not exist is wrong.

Why? Because it is currently impossible to know the actual answer.
Maybe if you'd have been reading my posts instead of praying (or whatever it is you do), you'd have noticed that I posted your "conclusions" almost verbatim more than once. *Remembers what happened when was truthful with the INTJs, holds back*

[Edmond Zedo]

You have to be an adult to commit adultery.

*wink wink*
And you have to be attractive for me to commit it with you.
*sneer sneer*

[songbird36]

And you have to be attractive for me to commit it with you.
*sneer sneer*

You have no idea what I look like.

and btw I'm not married...so i guess i'm safe from your adulterous ways..

[Geoff]

Do either of you have to be adults for it to count? :devil:

-Geoff

[Zero Angel]

You mean you guys are not married? *to each other*

Coulda fooled me ;P

[Edmond Zedo]

You have no idea what I look like.

and btw I'm not married...so i guess i'm safe from your adulterous ways..
Were you posting pictures of someone else? How despicable. Maybe I'm married, what do YOU KNOW about it.

[songbird36]

Were you posting pictures of someone else? How despicable. Maybe I'm married, what do YOU KNOW about it.

Maybe you are. Stranger things have happened....

[mgb]

The truth comes out. This entire thread was created so songbird could eventually hit on Zedo. Shame on you.

[cjs55]

And here I thought it was going to be the other way around...

[songbird36]

The truth comes out. This entire thread was created so songbird could eventually hit on Zedo. Shame on you.

"Hit on"? I think you've got the wrong choice of words there Mg..

lol

[melancholeric]

The truth comes out. This entire thread was created so songbird could eventually hit on Zedo. Shame on you.
Nitpick: This thread started before either of them had even registered. Maybe this was resurrected for them?

[cjs55]

Conclusion: Time isn't linear.

[songbird36]

Mgbradsh may want to take to take note of the fact that I have just *agreed* with him in another thread.

This may well be a historic moment...

[Dman]

Don't be fooled, we all know that songbird & edmond are the same person, just dual personas on this forum.

Actually, that gives me a good idea. I’m going to create another user here, then gush about what a wonderful, intelligent person Dman is! So wise, so insightful, so patronizing, such a smartass…

Of course the paranoid side of me says there is really only a handful of actual people here, posing as multiple users to get different perspectives and reactions from people. Wouldn’t that be bizarre? Chew on that for a while…

[melancholeric]

Of course the paranoid side of me says there is really only a handful of actual people here, posing as multiple users to get different perspectives and reactions from people. Wouldn?t that be bizarre? Chew on that for a while?
It took you quite a long time to notice...

[Dman]

It took you quite a long time to notice...

No, just a long time to admit I was thinking about it

[Ascending]

Hmm, I'm going to have to research proxys.

[Lee]

* still patiently waiting for a clear example of "alogical" *

a) Things that are equal to the same are equal to each other.
b) The two sides of a triangle are things that are equal to the same.
x) The two sides of this triangle are equal to each other.

"If a and b then x"

but here nobody has written the if-then rule.

c) If a and b are true, x must be true.

But this assumes a, b and c to be true, so another statement is added.

d) If a and b and c are true, x must be true

This repeats forever.....


The solution to the paradox, of course, is that no inference system follows explicit rules all the way down.

Logic is not infallible, delve deep enough and logic cannot explain anything, everything becomes alogical.

[Claverhouse]

PLACE-HOLDER FOR CLASSIC STATUS

[Ascending]

My God, you people are still here?

[cloakable]

Hmm? Lets talk about something random.

EdwinJefforson vs. Universal

The battle of the trolls. Who'd win?

[TwoBigFish]

Methinks thou dost protest too much.
(to everyone)

-C

[panda]

Methinks thou dost protest too much.
(to everyone)

-C
:zzz:

[Elizabeth B]

I know at least 2 INTPs who are Christians...me and my husband.

However, as a friend (ESFP) said, we "found Christ through quite a different method than most."

CS Lewis (ISTJ) wrote "Mere Christianity," a very methodical look at why Christianity is actually logical.

Read "Mere Christianity," The book of Romans (I think Paul was an NT), then the rest of the New Testiment to see for yourself.

Chuck Colson's books are also very good.

I had to believe analitically and logically (Mere Christianity helped here) before I could believe in faith.

[mgb]

I had to believe analitically

I remember a really funny joke about the Holy Spirit and that.

[stopharian]

Could we merge up some of these religious polls?

[mgb]

Could we merge up some of these religious polls?

STFU.

[b9588]

Hmm...interesting. I just stumbled across this article here: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080513/world/britain_religion_science_jews_einstein

Einstein calls religion a "childish superstition". I tend to agree.

[Fataliztik]

I am determined to be religious; after all, I believe my life is too brilliant for it to just be a result of my decisions, but every time I read the Bible I just cannot believe it. I'd love to be Christian. My boyfriend is, and he'd like us to go to church when we get older. Maybe I'll give in. I just can't swallow the Jesus story.
I was Wiccan for a year before I started questioning that too.
Is there a religion where you believe in an all-encompassing power but no actual religious rituals? That's for me.

[Oso Mocoso]

Is there a religion where you believe in an all-encompassing power but no actual religious rituals? That's for me.

You could try out Deism or Unitarian Universalism. Neither is precisely what you describe, but they're probably better than anything strictly Bible-based.

[kuraiken]

As 'one' of the INTP,I'm not religious at all.I don't know which religion is suitable for myself,I just can't put a blind faith on something,but I do believe in karma.Karma is more philosophical than religious.



Is there a religion where you believe in an all-encompassing power but no actual religious rituals? That's for me.

I do think that buddhism doesn't any stupid and useless rituals to follow because I never heard any,but I could be wrong.

[Zero Angel]

Umm yeah, but buddhism has its structure and doctrines as well. Karmas, transmissions of karmas throughout multiple lives, reincarnation, elemental phases of death, insight into emptiness (its a big concept and hard to explain in few words, but basically nothing matters, reality is just our own tenuous grasp and its foolish to hold on to your belief so tightly that it ruins perception, just go with it). Things like that. One doesnt have to practice to believe in any religion, but buddhism requests the activity of meditation on various human conditions and things like fear and compassion, as well as the process of clearing your mind through meditation. It also has its own concepts of god which may be different from the self-sought spiritual belief in a higher power or order, which is not attached to a particular religion. AFAIK. Maybe you should just stop looking and believe in the flying spaghetti monster. We all know he's real.

[kuraiken]

AFAIK. Maybe you should just stop looking and believe in the flying spaghetti monster. We all know he's real.

:worthy: :worthy: Flying Spaghetti Monster :mellow:

[INThoughtPolice]

I tend to agree with this guy.
http://chiefmag.com/issues/1/features/George-Saunders-on-Faith-Reason/