I see your point. But, the reason I conceded this point, after much struggling, explaining and exhaustion is that my beliefs are not logical by “the worlds” measurements. I can’t prove them to anyone, but myself. I was speaking to someone who considers logic a certain standard or level of knowledge. I also have the abilility to look at something and admit that it sounds ridiculous. He wore me down, I caved. I am not uncomfortable believing something that appears to be illogical. I apparently have no pride. I’m good with that. My beliefs make perfect and complete sense to me, but I don’t have a problem with seeing that they appear illogical to others.
Okay, I agree. But I obviously have a schizophrenic brain because I can see that what makes perfect sense to me, is imperfect by logical standards. If logic does not have to be considered true or false, then my certainty in my belief should not be labeled illogical by others, just false in their opinion?
I would love to lurk, to read any thought you have on this, but admit the “logic” of a lot of the points here have completely escaped me to the point that I don’t even remotely agree with them, but admit to very limited knowledge in these areas. I don’t think it’s particularly a hi-jack here. God is kind of incidental to the recent debate. It’s been more about thought processes, i.e. logic, natural law, rationalism, etc. It’s more about “how” we think, rather than “what”.
Priceguy, I couldn’t care less who wins or loses; I just want to eradicate ignorance, especially my own.
You’ve made the following claims: "Everything, everywhere, everytime, is bound by logic. Everything".
and "Logic exists indepentantly of us".
You also apparently believe that objective evidence is the only kind of evidence that can lead to accurate judgements/conclusions regarding our experiences and knowledge.
So please back up your claims with objective evidence. If you can’t or won’t… well, bye. It’s been fun, sort of.
IWLN, if my exchange with Priceguy was a hijack, I apologize. For what it’s worth, I enjoy your posts, they make me think (and laugh), and I admire your patience… 'tis far, far greater than mine.
Yes, he can. There were just two variables in that question, which created the possibility of two correct answers. God could give the bald man hair and then pull it or he could go back and immediately create the past moment of hair pulling.
No, it is not a nonsense statement. It is a statement that requires interpretation. I could trip over my own feet, state that my left foot doesn’t know what my right foot is doing, therefore; my left foot is confusion. What doesn’t make sense to you is not necessarily global nonsense. It is just a different way to state a fact.
I don’t agree. The above statement can be logical or nonsense, depending on opinion.
How about luck? It works well for some. It’s not particularly logical, but yet it can work. I did think I named some other ways before, but emotional choices come to correct conclusions too.
When it leads you to solutions that you could not come to with logic. It’s the “well I don’t think this can possibly be right, but I’ll try it anyway.” That works, at times.
I’m trying really hard to imagine that. So I get to that other place and God informs me that although he’s always been timeless, there seems to be a glitch in his energy system and we only have 100 more years? Do I say, “It’s okay God, nobody’s perfect.” or just “Bummer, God.” I don’t know, but since I’m pretty sure that God is the Universe in some way I haven’t quite understood yet, I would be waving “buh-bye” to earth. I have never tried to say I have all the answers or even a very small part of them. My concept of God is based on what I’ve been given, felt, seen, etc. I trust the big stuff to him. I have opinions and feelings on this, but not a good deal of “insider” knowledge.
Okay, you went past me again. Let’s leave God out of this one and give me a different example.
They may have interesting properties, but none that make it to the new proven knowledge stage, yet. We are trying to make sense, scientifically, of something that is just barely out of the nonsense stage. That is how much of proposed theory get’s it’s start.
So you’ve obviously never been on a date with that scientist who spent the whole evening being exited about the possible ramifications of that bubble or something similar. I have. Everything means something until you find out it doesn’t, in science. I don’t mean he has to pick completely unrelated possibilities, but just not discount what’s in front of him without exploring the meaning of it. Good science considers all things, except maybe the bubble fairy.
I don’t necessarily agree with your concept of being bound by logic, but the universe is too much of an unknown to follow any “rules” or logic that we can prove to be true. I am fairly sure the big answers will sound something like nonsense to start with.
You can state that the process, i.e.,electrical and chemical is logical, but the resulting thoughts,emotions, feelings, etc. do not follow your rules. They are subjective.
a. I am not going to drive my car today, because the roads are icy and the last time I drove, I ended up in the ditch. That is perfectly sound, logical reasoning for me. It is totally subjective and does not apply to my neighbor, who drives better than I.
b. Gravity is a regional natural law. It applies here on earth, but does not apply in other parts of the universe. Time, applies only where there are timekeepers. Distance, measurement means everything on earth and nothing beyond where it is measured.
Augh!!! Why not!!! I am on my way to you give or take a few thousands of miles. I am walking away from you and walking toward you. I am, I am. Tell me at what point you would consider that I am no longer walking away from you, but walking toward you. Do you have a set way to measure this. Because you darn well shouldn’t. That’s what I mean by limiting your perceptions.
I did not modify the actual fact that I am headed toward you. You have decided since I did not take the most efficient route, that the facts have changed. This is untrue. You did not define the entire method of how I was moving toward you. Priceguy, you have got to realize that just because a method for a project is not the most logical way to accomplish it, does not mean that it does not also accomplish it??? I am going to slap the “bubble fairy” now and see if it makes me feel better.:dubious:
Not a problem. Thanks. Hey, let’s talk about Priceguy like he’s not here. He has my complete respect for trying to explain a lot of these concepts to me. There is a lot of this that is similar to a grown up trying to explain things to a five year old(that’s me:)). This is a learning exercise for me. There is no competition for me(good thing, huh?). Except… I WANT THAT LAST POINT. IT WAS A GOOD ONE. Where’s my hammer? Patience overboard!!
I’m going to go out on a limb here and define “logic” a bit. A proposition can be true or false. A statement can be considered a proposition.
Example proposition: God exists.
God may or may not exist. A proposition can be true or false. It cannot, however, be logical or illogical. The line of reasoning by which one comes to the conclusion that God exists can be logical or illogical. A mere proposition has no logic value. If you don’t understand why, go look up “logic” and “arguments.” Or if you are really lazy I suppose you could ask in GQ.
You come to every conclusion with logic. Logic is the system by which you make the leap from premise to conclusion. Can you show me some examples of conclusions you have come to that defy logic?
Please go do some reading on gravity. It applies everywhere in the universe. Even if it didn’t, this says nothing about logic. This is just plain wrong.
Imagine little models of you and Priceguy standing on top of a circle. You begin walking away from Priceguy. For example’s sake, let’s say the diameter of the circle is 1 meter. If you could look at the distance between the two of you, it would increase to 1 meter as you approached the bottom of the circle, and once it got to 1 meter the distance would decrease. Once you are at an opposing point on the circle, you begin moving toward him rather than away.
We shouldn’t have a set way to measure distance? I’d like to hear why you think that.
How can logic not be subjective? My point here was that there is not a universal value for logic itself. There is a universal value for natural laws, simply due to the unchanging status of them, not that they could never change.
No, I agree with your version of logic. To me logic is a verb, not a noun. It is “why”, not “what”. It is a subjective tool whether the conclusion is true or false. It is not a definable standard. My problem solving method or my logic can bring me to a true or false conclusion. I do think that an emotional impulse reaction probably has no concious logic applied, but wouldn’t defy logic, because it had to come from some previous thought process and conclusion. Believe me early on in this whole thread, I looked up logical, illogical, reason, rational, irrational, debate, argument, atheist, etc. I early on realized my definition of some words did not match other peoples. I learn more from being told I’m wrong, than right. I love being right, but don’t get much else from it.
Okay, it was a poor example. I have done some reading on gravity and keep in mind, I only understand a portion of what I’m reading. Correct me if I’m wrong, I actually do appreciate it. The effect of gravity is a fact, but the cause of gravity is unknown, it is a theory. I was trying to point out the difference between “bound by logic” and natural law. They are not the same thing. I don’t agree that logic is universal. See Priceguy’s quote below.
quote:
It’s not mine. Logic is universal. IWLN, can you name one thing, being, event, anything, ever (apart from God), that is/was not bound by logic? Can you find anything at all?
Not what I meant. If I am walking toward Priceguy, I am headed, let’s say West. He is actually 3 feet east of me. We are at the equator, so it is 40,123 kilometers minus 3 feet until I get to Priceguy. Why going in this direction, am I not simultaneously going toward and away from him. I realize mid-point in the journey, I will only be going toward him, from the one perspective, but why does moving away from him affect the fact that I am moving toward an object that is 40,123-3ft away, namely him? I’m not speaking about efficiency, I’m blonde, I’m talking about different perspectives. Why does one fact negate the other? Okay, let’s pretend there is a magnetic force field between him and I and moving toward him going East is not a possible variable. What am I missing here?
Use of logic appears subjective due to human nature. Logic itself is not subjective. Logic is universal. We’ve defined logic that way.
I don’t understand what you are getting at here.
No, logic is not a verb.
No. Logic is not subjective. Logic is a defined standard.
Your problem solving method? Do tell me what method this is. You seem to be implying it uses no logic. Please, explain further.
Look them up again, please. If you disagree with the definition of “logic,” please, use another term. It is obvious to me you are not clear on what logic is, or how it works.
Yeah, something like that, but whatever. Gravity and logic are two different things.
I’m not sure what you define to be “natural law,” so I don’t know if you are correct here or not.
Then you are wrong.
Ok, stop. Read that last sentence. Read it again. When you walk in that direction, the distance between Priceguy and you is increasing until you reach the opposite side of the earth. Do you not see that? The distance between two points (namely, you and Priceguy) cannot both be increasing and decreasing at the same time. Do you understand this?
You are missing the fact that your perspective doesn’t matter. If you say “I am walking away from Priceguy” it is equivalent to saying “The distance between Priceguy and me is increasing.” If you say “I am walking toward Priceguy,” it is equivalent to saying “The distance between Priceguy and me is decreasing.” Do you not see how those two statements are mutually exclusive? The distance between two points cannot decrease and increase at the same time. Period.
Logic is universal. Its application is irrelevant. Priceguy’s example of “1+1=2” is great example of a universal concept. I think an even better, more basic example is 1=1. 1 will always equal 1 no matter what happens. It’s a universal concept.
Ouch. Okay when I told you I appreciated being told I was wrong, I didn’t realize there was a limit to my appreciation. I did get your name right!!
Logic-
n] reasoned and reasonable judgment; “it made a certain kind of logic”
[n] a system of reasoning
Reason - The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.
This should not be that hard of a concept. I apologize. I had a 3.9 average in college a long, long time ago. I’m embarrassed but not ready to slink away yet.
Let’s skip this one. It was origionally a comparison of natural law and logic or maybe it was whether or not logic is a natural law.
So logic is my decision after reasoning or is it my framework for reasoning. It seems to me that a “system of reasoning” is different than reasoned judgement. Put it another way. Is it the journey or the destination?
Obviously I do. It’s just apparently not working well.
It’s hard to use another term when that was the point of the discussion. I’m darn sure I’ve used it my whole life, but never tried to define it before.
A group of rules that are based on natural physical laws and basic human rights and nature.
No big surprise. This is getting more depressing by the minute. So why is logic universal?
Okay, one day I’m sure I’ll come back and agree with this, but not today. It’s not that I’m not sure you’re right, it’s just I still can’t see it. I can see logically why distance matters, but this is not about taking the most logical route. It is about a different path to the same destination. If I am headed toward Priceguy, but I am taking the long way, it seems to me that I am still headed towards him. I’m not disagreeing that I am increasing the distance between him and I, but I am traveling in his direction. The destination is still the same. The direction is the variable factor. The distance as in closer is the problem. Where I am going matters. Why doesn’t perspective matter? This is probably why I don’t have a problem with believing in God.
This is Priceguy’s original quote, which mentions nothing about distance other than closer/not closer, or direction or method. Could you explain to me what “bound by logic” really means?
The only disagreement I ever had with that was his certainty that nowhere in the universe could there ever be any variation on that. I completely understand that the world as we know it allows for no other concept, but blanket statements don’t allow for discoveries that could disprove the concept. I know I’ll get told I’m wrong on this too, but I’m getting used to it. Let’s say I’m right and one day we’re all this collective intelligent energy force somewhere in the universe, with the big guy. There is no more measurable physical existence. Laws of nature would not still be true. I know it sounds ridiculous, but if one day we are all dirt, no human life left; 1=1 will be meaningless too. Thanks for any questions you can answer. Again, I’m sorry to be so slow. How did I ever make such a great life for myself without knowing what logic means? Now I have to go tell Priceguy that I’m sorry, I’m an idiot. You would think I would accidentally prove one point now and then.
Think of logic as the very base of your system of reasoning. Any type of reasoning you do is logic. Any time you try and make sense of something you are using logic to do so. Logic is not only the journey, it’s the only path you can follow to get to the destination.
Logic is different than that. It’s not physical, it’s abstract. It’s not something easily described.
Essentially, because we’ve defined it as such. Rules like x=x; basic, incontrovertible laws that work independent of context. Put any number in place of x, and that statement will be true. There is no way around it, anywhere, ever. I take universal to mean they will always be true as long as our universe exists. Consider an even more basic universal law: “the universe exists.” It is clear that as long as the universe exists, you can truthfully make that statement.
I’m not going to talk about this anymore. It was used as a simple example of how the world is bound by logic. You are getting tied up in an example that doesn’t matter. It feels like we are going in circles (heh).
I’m not sure what Priceguy meant, but here’s my take: Any type of thought process or reasoning you go through is logical. You can’t avoid being logical in your musings. Things that are logical make sense to you, and things that are illogical seem ridiculous to you.
Some things are invariable within the universe. Is there any place in the universe, at any time, in which the universe doesn’t exist?
There is no discovery that could change the fact that any object is the same as itself.
There may not be any intelligient life around to interpret 1=1, but in the scope of this universe, 1 will equal 1 no matter where or when you go. It doesn’t matter if it has no meaning. The statement “If it is raining, then it is raining” is essentially meaningless to me, but is universally true and indisputable.
I’ll leave some of the bits to others, since they’ve been adequately explained already.
But he would have to either give the bald man hair or alter history?
So “God is love” means nothing more spectacular than “God feels love” or “God is in love”? I’m justified in saying “Priceguy is love” since I am in fact in love right now?
Happening upon a correct conclusion once in a while is not a way to reach objective knowledge. Yes, some inventions were found by chance, but no-one knew they worked until they were tested. Some discoveries were found by chance, but no-one knew they were true until they were tested.
I’m having a hard time understanding this. Exemplify, please?
Not what I meant. You go the “other place” and God informs you that, although he has all other characteristics you expect from him, he was created in the Big Bang and has around six billion years left to live. Would you deny his godhood?
Oh no, not even close. What I’m saying is that logical explanations do exist.
Exactly. We have to draw the line.
It being unknown stops it from following rules? Are you saying gravity didn’t work on the moon until people arrived there?
Of course they are. But they do not in any way defy the rules of logic. Besides, aren’t you the lady claiming logic is subjective?
Oh, and could you please stop referring to it as “my” logic and “my” rules? Trust me, they’re not mine.
Yep. Driving skill is a factor. That doesn’t make logic itself subjective.
Like where? As far as we know, gravity applies everywhere.
Nope. Time isn’t some imaginary thing either. It’s real and a function of motion.
Distance is also universal. How could it possibly not be?
other-wise: Logic cannot be tested. Do you expect me to produce a study about this? Let’s take the most basic proposition I can think of: 1+1=2. Are you saying that statement doesn’t exist independently of us? Are you saying it doesn’t apply everywhere?
Okay reasoning is logic. Even though it seems subjective, it’s not. It can’t be true or false, although your conclusion can be either. So it’s not the logic that is faulty if the conclusion is wrong? It can’t be faulty because there is no right or wrong logic, just right or wrong conclusions. Sorry I’m thinking on my keyboard. Okay, here’s an example. They usually get me in trouble, so I should know better, but I need them to know if I’m getting it or not. Be gentle. If I say the world is complex, therefore it must be a creation of God, not evolution. The logic is not wrong, but is inappropriately applied? Or is the logic just an innocent tool and the only problem is an incorrect conclusion?
Okay.
Good. My husband saw my point on this, but doesn’t think my butt looks big in that dress, either. He is a wise man.
Okay, just for the record; Priceguy first brought "bound by logic up on 11-26 at 6:41a.m. I can find no mention of it before that. Since we were kind of comparing the search for God to the search for Bigfoot and he was trying to explain logic to me, this came up. It doesn’t matter, the concept is true, but he brought it up first. This may be the only time I am right about something today, or maybe I’m not. It is not important anyway.
No. If it didn’t, we wouldn’t either.
Is there any difference between 1=1 and 1+1=2 as far as forever being universally true?
Right. Logic is not subjective. It is abstract, though, and that, I think, is where things get confusing.
Right.
If a logical argument has a false conclusion, it is based on false assumptions.
Logic isn’t “right” or “wrong.” An argument can be logical (valid) or illogical (invalid).
By the way, I think you might find it helpful do some reading on formal logic and argument validity. Here is the first hit google comes up with. It’s a pretty good source.
The reasoning is not wrong. You are basing your conclusion on information which others may believe is false, which casts doubt on your conclusion.
Right, but hopefully you got the point that “the universe exists” is a universal concept. Such is logic.
None at all. But I think its easier to see 1=1 as universal.
1=1 is axiomatic
1+1=2 is defining a shorthand – we could perfectly well have mathematics without this notation, never referring to “2” except as “1+1”, “3” as “1+1+1”, etc.
Dates and times from posts are pretty useless since each poster sees his local time. Anyway, I was in fact the first person to use the phrase “bound by logic”. I’m still claiming that you brought up the concept when you said
That’s how I interpreted that statement anyway. If I hadn’t, I wouldn’t have brought it up, since I do think it’s a nonsense concept.
As for 1=1 and 1+1=2, The Great Unwashed is right. I should have used 1=1 instead.
Priceguy, either the only way to knowledge is through “objective” testing (in which case Logic must be rejected), or there are other, non-objective ways to knowledge, perhaps even IWLN’s.
I’m done here. If you want to start a thread on the whole “1=1” thing, be my guest.
I am not uncomfortable believing something that appears to be illogical. I apparently have no pride. I’m good with that. My beliefs make perfect and complete sense to me, but I don’t have a problem with seeing that they appear illogical to others.
He has my complete respect for trying to explain a lot of these concepts to me. There is a lot of this that is similar to a grown up trying to explain things to a five year old(that’s me:)). This is a learning exercise for me. There is no competition for me(good thing, huh?). Except… I WANT THAT LAST POINT. IT WAS A GOOD ONE. Where’s my hammer? Patience overboard!!