|
>>>>However, if we recognize that >>>>naturalism is only our limited perception, >>> >>>I agree with you on that one. >>> >>>>then logic really >>>>has no basis to begin with, >>> >>>No basis for what? >> >>For proof of anything, anywhere, due to our limited >>perception. We can prove something within our limited >>perception, but I'm sure you will agree that nothing is >>actually proven. > >Absolutely. This is why I seem to have entered the business >of arguing to Inverse that logic is irrelevant when it comes >to theological questions.
It's irrelevant to anything if its intention is to find truth. However, it can be a nice tool for formulating opinions.. I think we're in agreement here.
>>What does it need a basis for, and why? >> >>It needs a basis so that its purpose (finding "truth" in an >>equation) can be fulfilled. > >I disagree that this is the purpose of logic. Logic is merely >a machinery for demonstrating that certain statements imply >certain other statements. "Truth," regardless of how strongly >we view the quotation marks, is only tangentially related.
I'll concede that one. Well put.
>>Logic needs that basis so that it >>can be useful. > >You've already stated that it's never proven anything to be >true (in the classical sense in which you seem to view the >term). Are you saying it's never been useful?
No. I'm saying it's a good tool when we understand our surroundings. If you and I (not saying this is so, although I think it is now) begin a discussion with prior knowledge that logic proves nothing, we've established that our discussion is hypothetical. Because morality and God are both issues of faith, I believe logic can be used cautiously, because we forgo any naturalistic proof given the topic(s).
However, if you and I agree that morality does, in fact, exist (again, the circle of defining "exist" comes into play), then suddenly we have a fact (i.e. "morality exists") in our discussion, and the game changes.
I'm guessing the difference between us is that I believe morality is absolute (to a degree beyond more complex cultural differences, that is), and you appear to be more skeptical. I could be wrong, but if that is the case, it explains a lot in our standing wave.
>>However, because no logistic equation can >>actually be proven true due to our limited perception (and >our >>continued supposed lack of a definition for "existence"), >all >>equations remain hypothetical. So, hypothetically speaking >>(in your belief system, that is), it is logical for me to >>believe in God. > >Well, it's not illogical. Logic is irrelevant.
Not by your above statement regarding logic's purpose, is it? I could be wrong here, but that's how I interpreted it.
> >>>>>>I consider >>>>>>the existence of God to be real, so yes, I treat it as >>>>such. >>>>> >>>>>>Therefore, it is a logical justification for me to >>believe >>>>>in >>>>>>God. >>>>> >>>>>I'll say it again, and hope it sinks in. The fact that >>you >>>>>"believe" in "God" (and good for you on that one) does >not >>>>>count as a logically rigorous proof that such a being >>>>exists. >>>> >>>>No, and that would be a ridiculous equation, logically. >>>>However, the fact that morality exists, in my opinion, is >>>>logically rigorous proof that God exists. >>> >>>1.) That's an entirely separate question. >> >>No, that's the topic of IV's post. > >No, the topic of Inverse's post is the question of whether >reason implies morality, not whether morality implies God.
Strav, come on. You KNOW that's what he's getting at.
>>>2.) I wish you were aware of the absurdity of this sequence >>of >>>words: "in my opinion, is logically rigorous proof." >> >>Until you give me a definition of existence that proves >>otherwise, for you to even use the word "absurdity" is an >>absurdity. Here's a news flash: logic IS opinion. > >Then why is your computer still functioning, considering that >my opinion holds that you should have been cut off from this >thread long ago?
My statement made sense, and I hope that you are beginning to see the relevance here. We might have actually made progress on this one.
***I'm a Child of Production***
|