Logic and god

[jajrussel]

My logical joke is getting a life of its own.

 

OK, here we go.

 

Let's take this one:

 

Anything is greater than Nothing. (1)

Nothing is greater than God (2)

So: Anything is greater than God.

 

Translate it to correct logical language:

1. [math]\forall x: x > Nothing [/math] (1)

2. [math]\neg \exists x: x > God [/math] (2)

 

Instead of (2) we can write:

[math]\forall x: God > x [/math] (2a)

 

So:

[math]God > Nothing[/math] (3)

 

So when you leave out 'Nothing' of (2), and re-write it as 'not exists', the 'problem' disappears. Is this the solution you meant, overtone?

Okay! You have outclassed me.

 

I am back to watching from the bleachers.

Edited January 1, 2015 by jajrussel

[MigL]

Eise, is it just a coincidence, or does every discussion you're involved in, devolve into a discussion about definitions and semantics ?

 

Just kidding; I do find it humorous though.

[Moontanman]

Here's a simple logical argument...

 

You are bigger and stronger than I am, so if I have something you want, you can simply take it from me.

That is the way most of nature works.

 

Religion/God gives us a certain morality which goes against this logic. It teaches us compassion, caring, forgiveness, etc.

Furthermore, can any of these qualities be deduced/defined by logic ?

 

 

If you had bothered to actually read your holy book you would see that your "logic" is flawed.

 

Further more we are social animals, we support behaviors that allow our society to go one, taking stuff from people just because you are stronger is wrong in the context of the morals our society decrees...

[overtone]

 

 

You are bigger and stronger than I am, so if I have something you want, you can simply take it from me.

That is the way most of nature works.

Most of Nature does not work that way.

 

So when you leave out 'Nothing' of (2), and re-write it as 'not exists', the 'problem' disappears. Is this the solution you meant, overtone?

A different approach to the same untangling.

[MigL]

Not my holy book by any means, Moontanman.

But I believe I ( and now overtone ) addressed that over two weeks ago, as that is a quote of my post from the 13th of last month ( see post #13 ).

Edited January 2, 2015 by MigL

[Moontanman]

Sorry, in nature ( excluding us ), the weak, elderly and sick are usually sacrificed to predators to protect the strong, which carry on the genes.

Do we, or rather should we ( because sometimes we do ), do that ?

Or do we have moral obligations to be compassionate and care for the sick and needy ?

Since I didn't reply to this post i thought I would do so

 

In this post you are using a strawman, the word sacrifice implies a conscious action, simply not being able to escape predators is not a sacrifice. Other social animals will attempt to take care of their members to the extent of their abilities, an injured wolf will be fed by it's pack mates as an example.

 

I responded to this message:

 

Here's a simple logical argument...

 

You are bigger and stronger than I am, so if I have something you want, you can simply take it from me.

That is the way most of nature works.

No nature doesn't act that way, not in social animals.Overtone did point this out.

 

Religion/God gives us a certain morality which goes against this logic. It teaches us compassion, caring, forgiveness, etc.

Furthermore, can any of these qualities be deduced/defined by logic ?

 

This is demonstrably not true unless you are using some holy book I am unaware of.

[Eise]

Eise, is it just a coincidence, or does every discussion you're involved in, devolve into a discussion about definitions and semantics ?

 

Just kidding; I do find it humorous though.

 

Of course that is not a coincidence! Many philosophical problems are based on shifts in meaning, subtle or not. Not every problem is (dis)solved under analysis of the terms in which a problem is formulated, but a lot of them are: e.g. if a falling tree makes a sound when nobody is there to hear it; if we have free will; if a cheese sandwich is better as God...

 

Keep kidding! Weren't jesters saying the truth under a sauce of humor?

A different approach to the same untangling.

 

Can you give your formal approach?

[ZVBXRPL]

I'll start with the premise that we as humans only make sense of the world using logic, id go further and say that i define our fundamental ability to deduct logic gives rise to higher intelligence and possibly even consciousness itself.

 

Given this premise, everything we consciously believe/percieve can be mapped logically. Therefor could the ability for us to conceive of "something from nothing" be impossible?

 

If the above statement is true then god simply isnt logical. But is logic all there is? considering "something must have come from nothing".

 

This isnt a very articulate explanation so i can expand or re-word it if it doesnt make sense.

 

Regards.

Most human beings are illogical. They live their lives with emotion being the primary motivating factor for everything they do, say and think.

When man first created "God", it was during a very primitive time in human history. They were wandering about the planet, hunting and breeding and had started to become more intelligent than the other animals around them.

So they start to ask questions about stuff. They come up with God of the Sky, God of the Earth, God of the animals, God of breeding, God of hunting, God of that little star thing up there that makes the Earth warm and light.

Fast forward to the present day, the vast majority of people on the planet still follow these primitive belief systems, despite the advances in science and technology. Depressing.

The only reason the majority of people on the planet are religious is because they are raised to be religious. We are still a primitive child-like species, playing with science and technology toys.

We are no different to how we were thousands of years ago. The only difference is that the toys are better.

[PeterJ]

I'd agree with most of that, XVBXRPL, except for your idea that religion is necessarily illogical and always just a superstition. A little logical thinking shows that this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It would be precisely our tendency to think emotionally rather than logically that leads to the incomprehension of religion that is so widespread. This incomprehension seems to stem from a failure to take metaphysics seriously, thus a failure to understand how it works, and thus a failure to understand the philosophical basis of religion or even the need for it. We are left with no religion and no metaphysical theory. Not enough logical analysis would be my diagnosis, and too much emotional thinking.