Halx

As I write my blog and I get responses from people who agree with me and people who disagree with me, I become increasingly aware of the relative reality that we all individually live in. Now, to me, there is only one reality, and everyone is free to make their interpretation of it, right or wrong, but it doesn't change the actuality. In any case, one's form of logic may clash with another form, making debate and learning impossible.

I don't intend to turn this into a debate about the wrong thing, but I think I must use examples to illustrate my point. I will use the god/no god debate.

There are several logical steps one can use to determine the existence or non-existence of god. Seeing as that is the case, it would make sense to determine that some uses of logic are incorrect, as they lead to diametrically opposing conclusions.

A) There exists no evidence for god, therefore it is impossible to argue for or against his existence.
- This, to me, is the most logical statement to be made.

B) If there were evidence for god, then faith would no longer be necessary. Therefore, god must exist without evidence.
- This is what I call an unlosable argument. A notion is introduced that, by definition, cannot be disputed. This does not prove a point at all, but makes it impossible to oppose.
- An unlosable argument is not a won argument, simply because the object of proof can be replaced by a wildcard.

C) The burden of proof is on the party making the positive claim.
- The real question is who is making the positive claim. Is it the party claiming the existence of something that cannot be proved? Is it the party claiming the non-existence of something that cannot be proved?

D) You cannot disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist.
- This is the most confounding point I can make. It wraps back into the unlosable argument point.

E) The logical advantage belongs to the party that holds the argument that CAN be disproved, but isn't.
- This is my opinion, but I would like someone to disagree with it.

What is logical to you?

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

GreyWolf

Well, without getting into the General Semantic definition of abstractions of reality (we can never experience reality, only the abstractions thereof provided by our nervous system, and hence only an approximation thereof), there are logical fallacies with your first 4 statements. I'm not going to argue the existence/non-existence of God either, but here are my issues with your assertions:

A) You can't assume there is no evidence for God without defining what would constitute evidence of God, and then proving that that evidence does not exist. Secondly, lack of evidence never precludes arguing for or against a particular theory, particularly when there is little hope of ever coming up with evidence (string theory comes to mind).

B) You implicitly assume that the only purpose of faith in God is to establish his existence. There may well be multiple reasons for faith, many of which may not follow directly from the existence of God.

C) Simply... WHY?

D) Of course you can. If something, by it's existence, must produce an effect which may be seen or measured, then logically, you can disprove its existence, by disproving the existence of that effect.

E) I can't dispute this until I understand what a logical advantage is.

__________________
The secret to great marksmanship is deciding what the target was AFTER you've shot.

Plan9

Random thought bubble:

In a world where even those with extreme political leanings can be "logical," I simply accept that life is about the gray areas. I can justify my actions, but why bother? Even moral philosophies like Deontology and Utilitarianism are simply masturbation of one's opinion of logical. There is no right or wrong; we construct these sides. That always brings me back to the notion that We Are What We Do, not what we think. Action is what matters.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Halx

A) If we were simply able to define what is proof and what isn't about ANYTHING, then the whole world would be up in the air. Nothing would ever be certain. I think this argument is the equivalent of a plane dropping flares to ward off missiles. Luckily, there is a dictionary definition for proof.

B) You read that wrong. Think about it. Faith is basically belief in something that isn't apparent. If it were apparent, it wouldn't need faith.

C) In any argument or trial, the plaintiff must present evidence.

D) Going back to the evidence conundrum... who says that something must have a measurable effect to exist? Who says that an effect is evidence of existence?

E) Logical advantage is simply "what is more logical"

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Derwood

In my experience, most debates devolve when someone is asked to prove a negative. This is terrible debate form

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

GreyWolf

I never said proof... I said evidence. Until we can agree on what constitutes evidence, then we can never decide if we have proven anything (or disproven it)

Again, for us to have a meaningful discussion, we would have to agree on what is faith. I cannot accept your definition of faith. One can have faith in things that are blatant apparent. Science is a faith, no matter how you want to colour it. I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow because there are basic principles involved that science has articulated, in a testable schemata. But it's still faith.

Granted. But you said the person making the positive claim bears the burden of proof. How does making the positive claim equate to plaintiff?

And what is more logical may well depend on the person's point of view. Going into an arguement, both sides likely think they have the logical advantage.

__________________
The secret to great marksmanship is deciding what the target was AFTER you've shot.

MSD

I do not accept that for which there is no evidence, nor that which is contradicted by available evidence.
I do not dismiss that which is supported by available evidence simply because it is inconvenient or contradicts my emotional reaction.
It is in each person's best interest to learn what they do not know at every opportunity.
It is in each person's best interest to teach what they do know at every opportunity.
I must not stoop to the level of petty insults or attacks on the character of those who treat matters that are verifiable or falsifiable as matters of belief.
I must be a voice of reason to those who are willing to assert beliefs as counterarguments to the empirically verifiable.
I must concede to those who are authorities because they are better qualified to understand than me and attempt to learn from them.
I must be able to justify my claims of authority to those who are less qualified to understand than me and be willing to teach them.
It is irresponsible to attempt to objectively evaluate that which is strictly subjective for any reason other than thought experiment.
It is irresponsible to attempt to subjectively evaluate that which is strictly objective for any reason other than thought experiment.
There is value in learning for the sake of learning.


I am a Skeptic.

Baraka_Guru

The problem here is that for theologians, the existence of God is assumed (I think). This doesn't make it any more or less a non-debate.

I don't think this follows through. If God came down from the heavens to leave a message to us all, and somehow demonstrated he was a godly being (say, by doing a number of "miracles" or astounding achievements in the blink of an eye), only to return to heaven, we would have evidence of God, but we would still need faith. Faith isn't merely the hope of God existing (as I said, it is often a given); it is the hope of specific outcomes and a trust in a system of values.

Also, faith isn't exclusive territory of the religious or spiritual. Many had faith in the economy before 2008. That's just one example.

I really don't think the question of God is ultimately a matter of proof. Like I said, I don't think theologians are particularly concerned about proving the existence of God.

This based on the assumption that God doesn't exist.

But how can a logical advantage belong to a party that has no means to apply logic? I disagree with you on the basis that the scientific method is constantly seeking to prove and disprove as they build upon and correct balances in what we call knowledge. Theology has no interest in such a thing. It's more interested in exploring religious traditions: essentially an examination of moral and ethical behaviours amongst groups and individuals. Comparing the scientific community to the theological community isn't very interesting. I think the source of conflict comes from a broader social problem of mingling cultures both domestically and internationally, in addition to rapid change and mass communication. In other words, I don't think the problem is a religious/scientific one so much as it is a cultural/social one.

What is logical to me is basically that which "adds up." It is the application of reason to determine what is true and what is false. Its real function is in determining corollaries.

I see no value in applying logic to the question of whether God exists.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Nimetic

Surely - it is always possible to argue. And.... besides some people would claim that there is evidence.



If we could see the invisible man then he wouldnt't be invisible, therefore the invisible man must both exist and be invisible. : )

More seriously though, I think this indicates that statement is missing a linking component. Maybe the full argument is more like

God wants to see if we can show faith without evidence
There is no evidence
If there was evidence then that would contradict the first point
Therefore god exists.

ie the first line has to be assumed.

The second might or might not be correct - it seems plausible, but does not explain saints and other happennings which of the faithful see as proof. (Such as in the bible). Apparently a saint is proven... through a miracle yes?

The third point seems fine.

The fourth point rests on the earlier shakier points. And assumes that if god is plausible according to those - then he must exist (and be male and singular).



I think this wording is unclear. Perhaps you meant it the other way around? Or... do you mean that we cannot disprove the existence of something that is undetectable.

This may be the case. However generally speaking - those who believe in the undetectable are considered slightly insane. (I need to look up schizophrenia now).
Their beliefs are no longer matching their observed reality and that of those around them.

I cannot disprove the existence of the tooth fairy. However I can say that the tooth fairy seems implausible. Just as a violation of well established physical laws seems implausible. I expect the sun to rise tomorrow. I cannot prove that it will.

On the other hand... if one is inclined to believe that complete proof is required before believing in something, why believe in religion. And if religion, then which one....



I'd argue that the burden rests on the people who knock on my door on weekends. Firstly because they've disturbed my peace - and second because they want me to read something or pay something or join something.

The burden rests on those who argue a particular change of behaviour or investment of time/money.

Hektore

How to define logic...bleh

The shortest, simplest way that I can come up with reads: A system for evaluating the truth value of statements based on a comparison to the known truth value of other statements.

The important part here is the 'known truth value' part, because when you start you don't have any statements with a known value, you have to make up some things and assume them to be true or not true as a place to start. In logic, philosophy, and geometry class we called them axioms, not the the distinction between geometric, philosophical and logical proofs is meaningful (the former two being a special set of the latter).

In my joyous undergraduate logic class (which was philosophy 110 for the curious), we start with simple axioms like "A=A" and "if A=B and B=C then A=C".

Axioms are important because where you start has a great impact on where you end up. If you want an example read up on Non-Euclidian geometry. Now, I wouldn't go so far as to say certain kinds of logic (a "kind of logic" being defined by it's particular set of axioms) are right or wrong, but certain sets of axioms are more or less useful for certain things.

Many times different axioms are the root cause of an argument, logical inconsistency or the assignment of different truth values to the same statement, if you will (If only people would realize this more often...). The trouble in any kind of debate setting (particularly one where folks are evaluating the existence of god/s) is getting people to see their own axioms as assumptions and recognizing that questioning of axioms is a very fruitful approach to debate and resolving the issue at hand, if it can be resolved at all.

__________________
The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.

filtherton

This.

MexicanOnABike

A. simple.

__________________

- Movie Reviews - Ratings-

Ourcrazymodern?

I think Spock said it best, when he referred to logic as a pretty flower...

I had a logic professor who opined that when you couldn't prove something you had to use you intuition.

It's logical to me to downplay logic's utility.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

roachboy

10, 11, 12.
q.e.d.
kinda.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

daysleeper

I'm going out on a limb here; bear with me. Both parties can be proven and disproven, and I'll try to explain. Within existence (scientifically ranging on the entire scale of an absence or presence of space, or supernaturally which cannot exactly be explained in scientific terms) the actuality of reality can be found. In borrowing the god/no god debate, His existence technically CAN be disproven by proving that within all existence (as I've roughly defined), He's simply...not there. And likewise, it can be proven that within all existence He is.

Now, in order to actually prove this, you would need the omnipotence to be everywhere at once at the same time to encompass all existence and prove or disprove either theory. This is impossible on the human scale, so "logically" the advantage wouldn't ever "belong" to either party. It would simply shift back and forth, much like a score board where the evidence of truth stacks and falls on each side either benefiting one argument for a time or canceling unusable arguments in another.

Logic is a shift in what is available as evidence at a certain time to better define what is apparent within that time. Logically, logic is illogical for matters of a higher form than what is able to be proven by man. For instance: You (generically speaking) spit into a gust of wind directed towards you. The force of the wind being stronger than the makeup of the saliva causes it to reverse and go back from whence it came. Logic, if one chooses to apply it to the current situation, proves the obvious result because it is in the realm of what we are able to interpret.

Therefore:

Your previous statements:
A) There exists no evidence for god, therefore it is impossible to argue for or against his existence.
- This, to me, is the most logical statement to be made.

Response:It is NOT impossible, we simply do not know all of the existing variables to conduct a complete argument satisfactory for every party (refer back to my second paragraph.)
-

B) If there were evidence for god, then faith would no longer be necessary. Therefore, god must exist without evidence.
- This is what I call an unlosable argument. A notion is introduced that, by definition, cannot be disputed. This does not prove a point at all, but makes it impossible to oppose.
- An unlosable argument is not a won argument, simply because the object of proof can be replaced by a wildcard.

Response: This argument is partially true, considering logically that if evidence for God existed then each being within the entire universe would need access to that evidence in order for faith to be unnecessary. In the game of 'human intelligence,' you may choose to use a wildcard.
-

C) The burden of proof is on the party making the positive claim.
- The real question is who is making the positive claim. Is it the party claiming the existence of something that cannot be proved? Is it the party claiming the non-existence of something that cannot be proved?

Response: I'd first like to point out the oddity and illogicality of both parties proving or disproving what "cannot be proved," as yet again you may refer to my second paragraph.)
-

D) You cannot disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist.
- This is the most confounding point I can make. It wraps back into the unlosable argument point.

Reponse: Three times' the charm! Second paragraph.
-

E) The logical advantage belongs to the party that holds the argument that CAN be disproved, but isn't.
- This is my opinion, but I would like someone to disagree with it.

Response: I conclude that you have an incomplete or inadequate (or illogical) argument, considering the potential truth of (E) is trumped by the human inability to "logically" explain the existence of God.

Making debate impossible? Maybe. Learning? Absolutely not. You never cease to have the ability to learn. It all depends on what it is you want to discover.

I hope this helps

Willravel

Halx, you should invite Kev to this thread.

I usually put it something like this:
1. God is supernatural by definition.
2. There can be no scientific evidence for the supernatural, if there were it would be natural.
3. That for which there is no scientific evidence cannot be logically assumed to exist.
4. Therefore god's existence cannot logically be assumed.

It's not airtight—there's a tiny bit of semantic wiggle room as far as the supernatural thing—but overall it holds up pretty well.

Just FYI, the theistic Ontological and Teleological arguments are demonstrably fallacious. They aren't an example of logic, they're an example of parroting old and debunked arguments. It's a shame Anselm and Pascal weren't alive in a time when they could have posted online. I would have enjoyed watching Thunderf00t's rebuttal videos.

curiousbear

First of all, in my life there are certain things that is beyond Logic!

I agree or disagree in existence of God based on which God we are talking about. But I strongly believe in being religious. And I strongly believe in respecting other's belief even if it is totally different from mine.

These things I do it just like that. Not because I know to explain them in logical terms.

ARTelevision

It is important to note that systems of logic have no particular relationship to "truth" in an ontological sense. They are simply systems of formulating propositions that have internal consistency - such as mathematics. In math, propositions are called "true" or "false" when they fall within the parameters defined by the basic assumptions of the system.

I find that the most eye-opening and mind-expanding insights into what might or might not be "logical," is to encounter n-value logic systems:

Many-Valued Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I find more relationship to what might be called "reality" or "the real world" in statements that allow propositions to be both true and false at the same time, for example.

To be bound by "either/or" logic systems is to be truly limited in one's ability to conceive of what is possible in this or other potential universes and universes of discourse.

__________________
create evolution

Jetée

__________________
As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves.

—Mohandas K. Gandhi