Religion Theory

[TheNextTherory]

Explained in a nutshell: Every religion could be in fact real. All of them at the same time. Explaining in depth here.

 

Near death experiences or "dead" people who wake up, always say what happened as there believes. This truly means, the afterlife is one part of any religion that is true.

Every religion can explain the existence of the universe.

Every religion can connect to the other, if you look.

Evolution, The Big Bang, how do Christians deny it, when if God is real, he could have made them happen.

We should notice also, all of the people with proof of there believes, have different story's. You know what, they all go with the persons religion. So, in a way, Christianity is just as correct as Athiestism.

 

-P.S. I'm not religious nor' atheist.

You don't have to agree with me, but prove me wrong.

[ajb]

Near death experiences or "dead" people who wake up, always say what happened as there believes. This truly means, the afterlife is one part of any religion that is true.

Or it points to some fascinating physiological phenomena of the brain when it is under great stress.

 

 

Every religion can explain the existence of the universe.

As in 'God did it'?

 

You don't have to agree with me, but prove me wrong.

Really as you have made the claims you should provide evidence. However, as you have made claims in religion, something that almost by definition does not require evidence, I cannot see how we can counter your claims.

Edited December 30, 2014 by ajb

[Vexen]

"So, in

a way, Christianity is just as correct as Athiestism."

 

That is a bad logical deduction. The conscious disbelief in a doctrine is not the same as a belief in one.

 

All religions can't be all true at the same time. Many of them have mutually exclusive concepts.

 

There are many other explanations for NDE and the experience is not well defined.

[Phi for All]

Explained in a nutshell: Every religion could be in fact real. All of them at the same time. Explaining in depth here.

 

Near death experiences or "dead" people who wake up, always say what happened as there believes. This truly means, the afterlife is one part of any religion that is true.

Every religion can explain the existence of the universe.

Every religion can connect to the other, if you look.

Evolution, The Big Bang, how do Christians deny it, when if God is real, he could have made them happen.

We should notice also, all of the people with proof of there believes, have different story's. You know what, they all go with the persons religion. So, in a way, Christianity is just as correct as Athiestism.

 

-P.S. I'm not religious nor' atheist.

You don't have to agree with me, but prove me wrong.

 

Normally, I would tell you not to misuse the word "theory". In science, theory doesn't mean "an idea I've thought a lot about", it means that idea has been thoroughly and rigorously tested to the point where we practically assume it's true.

 

Normally, I would tell you that science doesn't try to "prove" things. Proof is for maths, but science looks at the preponderance of evidence to support its explanations.

 

But you've said one thing that "proves" you wrong. Since Christianity is a theistic religion, and atheism literally means not-theistic, the two would logically seem unable to both be real (real as in existing or occurring as fact). How can "God(s) exist" and "God(s) don't exist" be simultaneously real explanations?

[andrewcellini]

You don't have to agree with me, but prove me wrong.

what have you proven right?

 

"every religion can connect to each other" in what sense are they connected? this statement is too vague to follow up. some religions are connected by history and geography (judaism and islam) but i don't think that's what you meant.

 

"every religion can explain the existence of the universe" god created the universe, spiderman created the universe, brian boitano created the universe, these all have NO explanatory power. the only question that is being answered is "who created the universe?" which may or may not be a meaningless one.

[Strange]

prove me wrong.

 

Tch! Why do people do that. Pathetic.

 

Anyway, using exactly the same amount of evidence and logic that you used to present your thesis leads to the following refutation: you are wrong.

[MigL]

Hmmm. Can God exist and NOT exist simultaneously ?

I had never thought of that Phi.

 

Maybe our definition of 'exist' is limited.

Just as our definition of wave and particle, or position and momentum are at the quantum level.

[recursion]

There's a noticeable problem with this discussion and generally all of the discussion regarding God and religion. The problem is there is not much definite said, the topic wavers around erratically, and people are not using careful logic -- which is a big "no no" in science.

 

First, to be a scientist, you must throw away any ambiguous notions you may carry which would negatively affect the perfection of your logic. Things are what they are. We know there is more than just material, although it seems to be explainable by an emergent greater order, emerging from certain coalescent systems, which is perceived as greater than simply a material manifestation.

 

Also, this is a diverse topic. To get anywhere at all, we need to stay on topic and specifically scrutinize points. Randomly shouting opinions does not result in any conclusion nor significant progress.

 

Let me state that we need to agree on how we understand religion before we can consider the posted question. If you take religion to mean the text which the religion centers its communication system upon, then you must decide if you define religion as the modern scientific translation of the text, a cultural translation of the text, a personal translation of the text (and the people share their expression amongst one another), or a deeper understanding, perhaps logical or wisdom-based.

 

To end this post, so it's not too long, I can say that yes, everything you read is true if you only accept the truth and you do not accept a lie or falsehood as true. Religion has a lot of reminders, and in the Qur'an, it is said that it was delivered “with the truth,” which logically can very well mean, “through the understanding of the truth you can read the actual Qur'an.” This applies to anything. You can see the truth in anything if you ignore popular semantics and understand language was a way to communicate a common understanding, not a common abstract definition (abstract in that words will rarely fully define something, and certainly not without prior understanding).

Edited January 4, 2015 by recursion

[MigL]

Thanks teacher.

 

But a lot of us consider religion subjective.

And don't really need you to tell us how to consider it.

[recursion]

Thanks teacher.

 

But a lot of us consider religion subjective.

And don't really need you to tell us how to consider it.

Objective truth is the agreement we are searching for (it is a science forum, rather than a personal opinion forum).

[Strange]

To end this post, so it's not too long, I can say that yes, everything you read is true if you only accept the truth and you do not accept a lie or falsehood as true.

 

Everything you read is true? So there really is a Santa Claus and a flying snowman and a talking bear called Pooh. Got it.

Objective truth is the agreement we are searching for (it is a science forum, rather than a personal opinion forum).

 

Objective truth has nothing to do with science. Only religion deals in "truth" and then it is never objective.

[Phi for All]

There's a noticeable problem with this discussion and generally all of the discussion regarding God and religion. The problem is there is not much definite said, the topic wavers around erratically, and people are not using careful logic -- which is a big "no no" in science.

You seem to be misusing the word "logic". Logic in science/math is not the same as "this makes perfect sense to me".

 

First, to be a scientist, you must throw away any ambiguous notions you may carry which would negatively affect the perfection of your logic. Things are what they are. We know there is more than just material, although it seems to be explainable by an emergent greater order, emerging from certain coalescent systems, which is perceived as greater than simply a material manifestation.

Uh oh, "emergent greater order", "certain coalescent systems", you've started tossing words into a bowl because they sound cool, but instead it's showing us you have a minimal science background. This type of argument makes you sound like you've walked into a locker room and started talking smack about a sport you aren't familiar with.

 

Let me state that we need to agree on how we understand religion before we can consider the posted question. If you take religion to mean the text which the religion centers its communication system upon, then you must decide if you define religion as the modern scientific translation of the text, a cultural translation of the text, a personal translation of the text (and the people share their expression amongst one another), or a deeper understanding, perhaps logical or wisdom-based.

All of these are subjective criteria, except for logic, which really can't be applied. Trying to get everyone to agree on how we understand religion seems to have eluded us so far, and your arguments aren't compelling enough to persuade me to try,

 

To end this post, so it's not too long, I can say that yes, everything you read is true if you only accept the truth and you do not accept a lie or falsehood as true. Religion has a lot of reminders, and in the Qur'an, it is said that it was delivered “with the truth,” which logically can very well mean, “through the understanding of the truth you can read the actual Qur'an.” This applies to anything. You can see the truth in anything if you ignore popular semantics and understand language was a way to communicate a common understanding, not a common abstract definition (abstract in that words will rarely fully define something, and certainly not without prior understanding).

Really? Truth?! There is no Truth is science. Only a preponderance of evidence to show us the best current explanations. How can you accept that words can't fully define something, yet still believe there is some kind of Truth applicable to everything?

[swansont]

 

Really? Truth?! There is no Truth is science. Only a preponderance of evidence to show us the best current explanations. How can you accept that words can't fully define something, yet still believe there is some kind of Truth applicable to everything?

 

To paraphrase/quote from Dr. Jones, "[science] is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."

[recursion]

 

Everything you read is true? So there really is a Santa Claus and a flying snowman and a talking bear called Pooh. Got it.

 

Objective truth has nothing to do with science. Only religion deals in "truth" and then it is never objective.

 

You did not read everything except for that one sentence apparently. I said, when you read, you do not understand the words written but instead you think about it and through your mind you come to an understanding. So yes, in your statement I see it is true that you are cynical and insulting, and thus I read what is true. In a better example, to consider that "God" created to universe, you'll have to equate the definition of what created the universe with God. If something created the universe, then that would be God, if nothing created the universe, then that would also be God. Reading through assumption an cynicism is a heavily biased an inaccurate way to understand anything. Understand that language is designed to instill a common understanding, not to have a bunch of random sounds which we randomly respond to.

 

You seem to be misusing the word "logic". Logic in science/math is not the same as "this makes perfect sense to me".

 

 

Uh oh, "emergent greater order", "certain coalescent systems", you've started tossing words into a bowl because they sound cool, but instead it's showing us you have a minimal science background. This type of argument makes you sound like you've walked into a locker room and started talking smack about a sport you aren't familiar with.

 

 

All of these are subjective criteria, except for logic, which really can't be applied. Trying to get everyone to agree on how we understand religion seems to have eluded us so far, and your arguments aren't compelling enough to persuade me to try,

 

 

Really? Truth?! There is no Truth is science. Only a preponderance of evidence to show us the best current explanations. How can you accept that words can't fully define something, yet still believe there is some kind of Truth applicable to everything?

 

Logic (I am, in trade, a programmer), is to create a thought process without any error or flaw. Personal opinion is not logic, so you certainly did not understand the meaning of what I wrote (this goes back to Strange's reply, which did not understand the nature of language).

 

There is no inaccuracy that coalescent systems are required for independent though and self-reflection (the process of self-reflection inarguably uses multiple systems which are interconnected, or coalescent, which gives rise to the emergent phenomenon of self-reflection).

 

In response to the third response, simply ignoring what we're defining religion as (remember words have no meaning unless they are agreed upon) is definitely counterproductive and results in the increase in ambiguity and concurrently the increase in incoherent discussion (discussing different things which happen to be associated with the same word).

 

The last statement you said is a HUGE one. There is universal truth, regardless of environment, and that is the process of truthful deduction. Founded on that process of truthful deduction, we correlate our perceptions to create a coherent language of understood phenomena and it is all founded on what is truly universal truth (the process of truthful deduction). (I see no alternative and it seems a bit absurd to deny it, but if you do see an alternative to the process of truthful deduction being truthful and universal, please inform me, as this is an extremely important thing -- all knowledge is based upon it.)

[John Cuthber]

 

1) You did not read everything except for that one sentence apparently. I said, when you read, you do not understand the words written but instead you think about it and through your mind you come to an understanding. So yes, in your statement I see it is true that you are cynical and insulting,

...

2)The last statement you said is a HUGE one.

....

Re 1 He may be cynical, but more importantly, he's right.

Your assertion

" yes, everything you read is true if you only accept the truth and you do not accept a lie or falsehood as true. "

simply isn't true.

There are many counter example which prove this.

So, having found that, at least, some of what you say isn't true, doesn't it make sense to stop reading at that point and explain to you that you are wrong?

 

 

Re. 2

Indeed.

So if you are looking for truth you are in the wrong place.

However you will not find truth by making false statements like " yes, everything you read is true if you only accept the truth and you do not accept a lie or falsehood as true. "

[Strange]

You did not read everything except for that one sentence apparently. I said, when you read, you do not understand the words written but instead you think about it and through your mind you come to an understanding.

 

That is not what you said. I can only read and reply to what you write. I am not a mind reader.

 

 

So yes, in your statement I see it is true that you are cynical and insulting, and thus I read what is true.

 

I prefer sceptical and critical. If you find having your ideas challenged an insult, maybe a discussion forum is not the best place for you.

 

If something created the universe, then that would be God, if nothing created the universe, then that would also be God.

 

Your second sentence is ambiguous (which is worrying for someone so obsessed with "logic").

 

Do you mean:

a) If the universe was created by "nothing" then god is "nothing" (i.e. doesn't exist); or

b) If the universe was not created then god did that (i.e. did nothing) and is therefore redundant.

 

And, of course, there is no evidence that the universe was created (whether by god, nothing or Santa Clause).

 

Logic (I am, in trade, a programmer), is to create a thought process without any error or flaw.

 

Yet another incorrect definition of logic. How many more have you got?

 

The last statement you said is a HUGE one. There is universal truth, regardless of environment, and that is the process of truthful deduction. Founded on that process of truthful deduction, we correlate our perceptions to create a coherent language of understood phenomena and it is all founded on what is truly universal truth (the process of truthful deduction). (I see no alternative and it seems a bit absurd to deny it, but if you do see an alternative to the process of truthful deduction being truthful and universal, please inform me, as this is an extremely important thing -- all knowledge is based upon it.)

 

Again, this is philosophy and has little or nothing to do with science.

[recursion]

 

That is not what you said. I can only read and reply to what you write. I am not a mind reader.

 

I apologize if I did not. I think I checked before I wrote that, however it might have been a different forum. The point remains that language is used to communicate understanding, not usually semantics. Thus, I can make a sound representing something I understand and if you perceive the same understanding, then language has been effective. Two people will often read a slightly different word with the same word as it's understood differently.

 

 

Your second sentence is ambiguous (which is worrying for someone so obsessed with "logic").

Do you mean:

a) If the universe was created by "nothing" then god is "nothing" (i.e. doesn't exist); or

b) If the universe was not created then god did that (i.e. did nothing) and is therefore redundant.

And, of course, there is no evidence that the universe was created (whether by god, nothing or Santa Clause).

 

Suppose the answer to how existence exists is referred to as "God." What I'm saying is similar to if x+2 = 5, then x=3, as in if God created the universe, then whatever is responsible for existence (at least manifest existence), would be God, by that definition. Science has not replaced that nor has it demonstrated any ability to provide what would actually be a more specific definition of God, assuming "God = who or what created the universe, [new scientific explanation with many attributes] = who or what created the universe, thus [new scientific explanation with many attributes] = God." I'll reiterate that you must remove personal or social bias in your understanding. Realize that if God is the one who created the universe, then the scientific explanation for the creation of the universe would be God, were it to be specifically defined. To state that your definitionless "God" did not create the universe is to state nothing at all.

 

Still, there is one other perspective, that the universe was never created, it just always existed, which is a bit preposterous, I think, as that means that despite the fact that I was created, and another was created before me, then someone was created an infinite amount of time ago, implying an infinite amount of time has passed, which is an error.

 

Again, this is philosophy and has little or nothing to do with science.

 

The philosophy of science is an integral part of science, without which science would not function at all. Still, what I said was not exclusive to philosophy by any stretch. Furthermore, science is inherently strict logic, and better logic creates better science as logic is the only accurate method of truthful discernment. As science is directly concerned with the truth, it is of unequivocal importance that science be in perfect accordance with it. If science deviates from the truth, then it is blasphemy, as far as science is concerned at the very least. To suggest to simply ignore what the truth is and what perfect logic can entail, from a strict scientific and logical standpoint, means to completely get rid of science in its entirety. Without perfect logic, which is required to understand the truth, science would say absolutely nothing at all. This is actually starting to become a philosophical conversation, as we're dealing with the general nature of science rather than deducing truth through strict logic and error-free understanding.

Edited January 5, 2015 by recursion

[david345]

God knows this sentence is a lie.

[Strange]

The point remains that language is used to communicate understanding, not usually semantics.

 

As semantics refers to meaning, I don't see how language (or understanding) could work without semantics.

 

To reiterate this point you must remove personal or social bias in your understanding.

 

As you are the one who appears unable to understand basic science, logic or the nature of evidence because of your religious bias, I think that advice applies more to you than most other members of this forum.

 

Realize that if God is the one who created the universe, then the scientific explanation for the creation of the universe would be God, were it to be specifically defined.

 

So if, as some physicists speculate, the universe was created by a ranbdom quantum fluctuaation, then you are happy worshipping a false vacuum (better than a false idol, I suppose).

 

Interesting that you failed to clarify the meaning of your ambiguous sentence...

 

Still, there is one other perspective, that the universe was never created, it just always existed, which is a bit preposterous, I think,

The fact you think it is preposterous would be an argument from incredulity (another logical fallacy, which I am sure you are aware of.

 

as that means that despite the fact that I was created, and another was created before me, then someone was created an infinite amount of time ago

 

So presumably you deny or don't understand evolution, then. No one was created and there is no reason to think someone was created an infinite time ago.

 

implying an infinite amount of time has passed, which is an error.

 

And this appears to be the fallacy of begging the question: "the universe can't be infinitely old because that would mean an infinite amount of time has passed, which is an error".

 

Why would that be an error?

 

 

The philosophy of science is an integral part of science, without which science would not function at all. Still, what I said was not exclusive to philosophy by any stretch. Furthermore, science is inherently strict logic, and better logic creates better science as logic is the only accurate method of truthful discernment. As science is directly concerned with the truth, it is of unequivocal importance that science be in perfect accordance with it. If science deviates from the truth, then it is blasphemy, as far as science is concerned at the very least. To suggest to simply ignore what the truth is and what perfect logic can entail, from a strict scientific and logical standpoint, means to completely get rid of science in its entirety. Without perfect logic, which is required to understand the truth, science would say absolutely nothing at all. This is actually starting to become a philosophical conversation, as we're dealing with the general nature of science rather than deducing truth through strict logic and error-free understanding.

[Phi for All]

Logic (I am, in trade, a programmer), is to create a thought process without any error or flaw. Personal opinion is not logic, so you certainly did not understand the meaning of what I wrote (this goes back to Strange's reply, which did not understand the nature of language).

I'd be very careful with this. You're claiming people are ignorant of the nature of languages, or of what you wrote, but you can't possibly know that. Also, computer programming logic doesn't make you logical in all you do. It's not even the same kind of logic you keep mentioning.

 

There is no inaccuracy that coalescent systems are required for independent though and self-reflection (the process of self-reflection inarguably uses multiple systems which are interconnected, or coalescent, which gives rise to the emergent phenomenon of self-reflection).

Please tell me why you think this is true. With meat this time, no salad.

 

In response to the third response, simply ignoring what we're defining religion as (remember words have no meaning unless they are agreed upon) is definitely counterproductive and results in the increase in ambiguity and concurrently the increase in incoherent discussion (discussing different things which happen to be associated with the same word).

I'm not ignoring the definition, I'm saying there are too many, and very little desire for any of the parties involved to redefine themselves for the benefit of accurate definitions. Religious people are not known for their flexibility with regard to across-the-board cooperation,

 

The last statement you said is a HUGE one. There is universal truth, regardless of environment, and that is the process of truthful deduction. Founded on that process of truthful deduction, we correlate our perceptions to create a coherent language of understood phenomena and it is all founded on what is truly universal truth (the process of truthful deduction). (I see no alternative and it seems a bit absurd to deny it, but if you do see an alternative to the process of truthful deduction being truthful and universal, please inform me, as this is an extremely important thing -- all knowledge is based upon it.)

Can you give me even one example of a universal truth arrived at by your "process of truthful deduction"? And while I can appreciate that you find it all absurd to deny what you seem to have stumbled upon, your personal incredulity is not enough to convince me you might be correct. Science is not about Truth, science is about finding evidence to support your explanation. If you have a mountain of evidence, and nothing to refute your idea, we can start making predictions that will teach us more. Without the evidence, your word salads are particularly unappetizing.

[recursion]

I'd be very careful with this. You're claiming people are ignorant of the nature of languages, or of what you wrote, but you can't possibly know that. Also, computer programming logic doesn't make you logical in all you do. It's not even the same kind of logic you keep mentioning.

 

Please tell me why you think this is true. With meat this time, no salad.

 

I'm not ignoring the definition, I'm saying there are too many, and very little desire for any of the parties involved to redefine themselves for the benefit of accurate definitions. Religious people are not known for their flexibility with regard to across-the-board cooperation,

 

Can you give me even one example of a universal truth arrived at by your "process of truthful deduction"? And while I can appreciate that you find it all absurd to deny what you seem to have stumbled upon, your personal incredulity is not enough to convince me you might be correct. Science is not about Truth, science is about finding evidence to support your explanation. If you have a mountain of evidence, and nothing to refute your idea, we can start making predictions that will teach us more. Without the evidence, your word salads are particularly unappetizing.

 

Logic is logic, there's no distinction of different types of logic, only subcategories. Logic is pure and perfect, when done correctly, and forms the foundation of science.

 

What do you define as "meat?" Consider when you logically deduce that there is a high probability that after the day it will be night, as you have seen it repeatedly follow that pattern and through your understanding of the basic probabilities implied by consistently repeated phenomena, you make that deduction. There is no salad in that, I use words very accurately, and without any fluff. If there is the perception of that, then there is specific understood ambiguity and you'll have to be more specific in order to identify what your concern is.

 

As I have said a few times already, language is a method to communicate understanding. It is not a word puzzle, at least in the terms of communication (you can always make a word puzzle, but that is not with intention to communicate, unless it communicates understanding). If we simply ignore the definitions, we may as well be using random words instead. So, the idea that "... there are too many, and very little desire for any of the parties involved to redefine themselves for the benefit of accurate definitions" is ignoring the entire purpose of language and would lead to thoughtless rambling about nothing at all with no meaning, just to make some noise.

 

 

Religious people are not known for their flexibility with regard to across-the-board cooperation,

 

"Religious people" have nothing to do with the present thoughtful, logical discourse that is at least the theme of this partaking. "Religious people," throughout history have often made errors, as well as what you would consider "non-religious people," or of athiesm, which in its modern form, is practically a cyclical thought-ritual, although I do see the facet of athiesm that deals with the exclusivity of material existence on all existence, and that existence is entirely irrelevant of ultimate truth, that the process of truthful deduction is a randomly generated set of agreement, and I do think those arguments are fairly easily fallacious.

 

Also, concerning "religious people," they, as many others, have not found perfect logic and others, who are not much different, really (who also take hearsay and errorfull logic as fact), have chosen to insult them. I see it as one is more insulting than the other, actually. Also, the belief in God is inherent, archetypally, as it is a principle notion inherent in sentience than an ultimate sentient designer or creator exists (it is a common subconscious feeling or understanding of at least the notion that we may grow towards ultimate sentience, perhaps indefinitely). We certainly move towards it, so it makes sense that at the very least, it is a natural belief. It's simply extending a linear progression indefinitely. Considering that, the belief in a non-sentient origin is actually psychologically less natural. There is no instance in nature where were originated from a non-sentient being, and there is no reason not to be able to understand ultimate sentience and intelligence (humans can easily do linear progressions), thus it is unnatural to believe in the antithesis of it.

 

 

Can you give me even one example of a universal truth arrived at by your "process of truthful deduction"? And while I can appreciate that you find it all absurd to deny what you seem to have stumbled upon, your personal incredulity is not enough to convince me you might be correct. Science is not about Truth, science is about finding evidence to support your explanation. If you have a mountain of evidence, and nothing to refute your idea, we can start making predictions that will teach us more. Without the evidence, your word salads are particularly unappetizin

 

The assumptive perceptive fallacy present in your question is that you need a material observation to perform logic, which is, at least, a major component of the process of truthful deduction (the other being the inspiration or inclination to begin and continue). The existence of pure logic itself is ultimate truth as well as is the existence of truthful deduction. In that truth that we can discern the truth of any phenomenon, potentially, with enough observations, is the truth that the perception of difference is required for sentience, which is also an ultimate truth -- that for life to exist, there must be a difference in perceptual existence, without it, sentience would never be able to emerge. If you continue with what you already know, but you actually make no error in logic, you will find that you have quite a bit of information regarding the necessities and fundamentals of existence itself. Existence has quite a few requirements, and so does sentience, which is built on existence. Interestingly, the material world is just an interconnected, essentially tautological system that is totally codefining (or at least nearly totally codefining -- perhaps if it had spawned from another material existence), and as such, with an understanding of existence and sentience and the requirements thereof, you can potentially create new functional material environments very alien subjectively but completely familiar from a sentience and search for truth perspective. It's very amazing if you can lift your head up enough to see it.

 

Edited January 5, 2015 by recursion

[studiot]

 

recursion

 

Logic is pure and perfect, when done correctly, and forms the foundation of science.

 

Oh dear dear me!

Such nonsense I never did see!

 

Please explain to me the logical foundation of the following scientific statements:-

 

A total of 3,144,722 persons earned between $900 and $1000 in the US in 1918.

 

The deepest depth recorded in the oceans is 6.831 miles below sea level.

 

The foundation of science mate, is the hard , hard work involved in painstaking observation and measurement.

 

I know, I've done lots.

The logic come later.

Edited January 5, 2015 by studiot

[John Cuthber]

Logical deduction- which is the only sort of logic that's going to get anywhere starts with axioms or facts.

You seem to have come to the conclusion that atheists are illogical.

Please let us know what are your axioms and what logical steps you are taking to get from those to the conclusion.

 

that's the "meat".

This "There is no salad in that, I use words very accurately, and without any fluff. If there is the perception of that, then there is specific understood ambiguity and you'll have to be more specific in order to identify what your concern is." on the other hand, is, at best, "salad".

 

(It's also factually incorrect- as detailed elsewhere- but that's not the point here.)

[Strange]

Logic is logic, there's no distinction of different types of logic, only subcategories.

 

Nonsense. There are many types of logic (for example, Wikipedia lists some of the main types: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic).

 

 

Logic is pure and perfect

 

Does that even mean anything? In what sense is it pure? In what sense is it perfect?

 

 

and forms the foundation of science.

 

Nope.

 

Consider when you logically deduce that there is a high probability that after the day it will be night, as you have seen it repeatedly follow that pattern and through your understanding of the basic probabilities implied by consistently repeated phenomena, you make that deduction.

 

Ironically, that is an example of inductive reasoning (rather than deductive).

 

I use words very accurately, and without any fluff.

 

If only. It is hard work wading through your overlong sentences, your repetition, your false logic and general waffle. I wonder if there is any point. It is not clear you have anything of value to say.

 

If there is the perception of that, then there is specific understood ambiguity and you'll have to be more specific in order to identify what your concern is.

 

 

When I asked about one specific example of ambiguity, you did not answer the question and, instead, responded with your usual irrelevant waffle.

 

If we simply ignore the definitions, we may as well be using random words instead.

 

You are the one who consistently uses non-standard definitions for things.

 

and would lead to thoughtless rambling about nothing at all with no meaning, just to make some noise.

 

That about sums it up.

 

 

Also, the belief in God is inherent, archetypally, as it is a principle notion inherent in sentience than an ultimate sentient designer or creator exists

 

Then why are there many people who do not believe in gods?

 

And even if it is a fundamental part of the human psyche, that doesn't say anything about the existence of gods - espeically as people have believed in so many different deities over the years.

 

The assumptive perceptive fallacy present in your question is that you need a material observation to perform logic

 

I think you miss the point, you need observations to perform science, not logic. Logic can be done in the abstract with no connection to the real world.

 

The existence of pure logic itself is ultimate truth as well as is the existence of truthful deduction.

 

If that were true, then there would be no need for experimental science.

[Phi for All]

Logic is logic, there's no distinction of different types of logic, only subcategories. Logic is pure and perfect, when done correctly, and forms the foundation of science.

Really?! You think formal logic is the same as informal logic or symbolic logic, except that they're just subcategories of the same thing? I would suggest that the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning alone show this isn't true.

 

And again, logic doesn't form the foundation of science. You keep saying this but it isn't true.

 

What do you define as "meat?" Consider when you logically deduce that there is a high probability that after the day it will be night, as you have seen it repeatedly follow that pattern and through your understanding of the basic probabilities implied by consistently repeated phenomena, you make that deduction. There is no salad in that, I use words very accurately, and without any fluff. If there is the perception of that, then there is specific understood ambiguity and you'll have to be more specific in order to identify what your concern is.

I specifically asked you to tell us why "coalescent systems are required for independent though and self-reflection" . You seem to be saying one has to have "systems" that combine before one can think independently. What does this mean and why is it relevant to what we're talking about? Instead, you've given me a hand-wavy defense of the accuracy in the way you use words (yet several other members have mentioned a problem with your word salad posts).

 

As I have said a few times already, language is a method to communicate understanding. It is not a word puzzle, at least in the terms of communication (you can always make a word puzzle, but that is not with intention to communicate, unless it communicates understanding). If we simply ignore the definitions, we may as well be using random words instead. So, the idea that "... there are too many, and very little desire for any of the parties involved to redefine themselves for the benefit of accurate definitions" is ignoring the entire purpose of language and would lead to thoughtless rambling about nothing at all with no meaning, just to make some noise.

Which seems to be exactly what happens when people of differing religions discuss them. They all have a different definition of religion, god, faith, you name it. Please tell me how you can use language to give everyone a universal definition of religion (or god, or faith) all can agree on.

 

"Religious people" have nothing to do with the present thoughtful, logical discourse that is at least the theme of this partaking. "Religious people," throughout history have often made errors, as well as what you would consider "non-religious people," or of athiesm, which in its modern form, is practically a cyclical thought-ritual, although I do see the facet of athiesm that deals with the exclusivity of material existence on all existence, and that existence is entirely irrelevant of ultimate truth, that the process of truthful deduction is a randomly generated set of agreement, and I do think those arguments are fairly easily fallacious.

Even Ranch dressing doesn't make this palatable.

 

There is no instance in nature where were originated from a non-sentient being, and there is no reason not to be able to understand ultimate sentience and intelligence (humans can easily do linear progressions), thus it is unnatural to believe in the antithesis of it.

Except there is. No matter how you define sentience, at some point our ancestors didn't have it. You may have to go back a ways, perhaps before our first real primate ancestors, or you could go all the way back to the first vertebrate fish who had their skeletons on the inside for the first time. At some point, our ancestors were not what we could call sentient.

 

The assumptive perceptive fallacy present in your question is that you need a material observation to perform logic, which is, at least, a major component of the process of truthful deduction (the other being the inspiration or inclination to begin and continue).

 

 

Let me show you what I mean by "word salad". Take this above sentence. What it says to me is, "You're wrong because you think empiricism is required for logic, but it's just one of two major components". It's a bad statement, if you really take a look at it. It's like saying, "You're wrong to say that cars need wheels to move because they also need an engine".

 

The rest seems like you're trying to fill in what you don't know with what makes sense to you, and then you call the whole thing "logical". And that's the really bad part, because you've reached all your conclusions so subjectively that it can only be thought of as opinion, yet you'll continue to think you're doing science.