3 of 5
3
Logic and God
Posted: 04 December 2006 03:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14

LOL

To be fair, van Fraassen would say that glasses are like telescopes, not microscopes ...

But it is a very weird position nonetheless ...

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 December 2006 04:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  196
Joined  2006-02-09

Doug:

It is indeed a strange position.  What is the difference between a telescope and a microscope?  If I understood your previous posts, the difference is that in principle we could go to the object we see in the telescope while we can’t go see the germ?  Visual telescopes and light microscopes operate on the same principles.

Wes :D

 Signature 

Fairness is Justice

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 December 2006 05:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
[quote author=“wesmjohnson”]It is indeed a strange position.  What is the difference between a telescope and a microscope?  If I understood your previous posts, the difference is that in principle we could go to the object we see in the telescope while we can’t go see the germ?  Visual telescopes and light microscopes operate on the same principles.

Yes and yes. This is one reason why many people find van Fraassen’s position basically indefensible. I raised it for discussion purposes. At any rate he’s a very smart and knowledgeable philosopher of science.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 December 2006 06:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  196
Joined  2006-02-09

Doug:

Yes and yes. This is one reason why many people find van Fraassen’s position basically indefensible. I raised it for discussion purposes. At any rate he’s a very smart and knowledgeable philosopher of science.

:D Really?  Smart and knowledgable?  Sounded less than that to me.  I have learned that he is a year older than me and that his education has been all philosophy.  Too bad he has done no science.  I wonder what qualifies him to be a Philosopher of Science? :wink:

Warmly, Wes

 Signature 

Fairness is Justice

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2006 04:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

What logical errors have others here found that theists make ? LOL My signature shows what I think on that.

 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 December 2006 11:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  196
Joined  2006-02-09

griggsy you wrote

Reason saves! Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.

I am not at all sure that logic is the bane of theists.  I find many of them more logical than some non-theists.  I would say that their premises are a problem. :D

Wes :D

 Signature 

Fairness is Justice

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2006 02:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  908
Joined  2005-01-14

Here’s an example from a poster over at Planet Wisdom:

As of now the number of stars and objects in the universe are beyond what we can calculate. Which is a mathematic infinity. Then if you add the factor of Chance to this the number truly becomes infinity. The physical universe is mathematically infinity impossible for the explanation of chance. Design is the only option. The physical world looks designed because it is.

Does that make any sense to you?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2006 03:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14

[quote author=“advocatus”]Does that make any sense to you?

None whatsoever. That said, I do agree with Wes here: there are some quite smart, rational theists. Obviously I don’t believe that they are being completely rational about their theism, however one cannot dismiss theists generally as being stupid or “illogical”. (Some are, but not all).

Anyhow, better to stick to the particular claims and arguments rather than engage in ad hominem attacks ...

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2006 07:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

I agree that some theists can use logic quite accurately (Thomas Aquinus and Bishop Berekley come to mind), but they start with erroneous premises, although they often do a great job of hiding the errors.

On the other side I’m fascinated by those theists who love to use esoteric scientific concepts or techniques to prove their points even though they show that they don’t really have any understanding of the concepts.

Two are probablity (geez, do they get confused about this) and infinity.  I don’t know what makes infinity so attractive to theists.  It always seemed to be a rather simple mathematical concept, even if it’s hard to envision it in physical terms.  The posters on Volcanvo are particularly clueless about precisely what infinity means.  One of the best was the guy who used elementary algebra to “prove” that infinity was wrong, even as a concept.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2006 08:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14

Well, it’s the age old rhetorical trick of obscurantism or bamboozling. Concepts like “infinity”, “probabilities”, “quantum mechanics”, etc., are poorly understood by most people. As a result it is all too easy to fake expertise in them, and claim ex cathedra that they support your position. Since, again, very few people are actually competent to determine whether they do or don’t support the position at issue, most people will end up taking your word for it. And that goes doubly if the claim is one they wished to support from the beginning.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 December 2006 10:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

My signature is hardly ad hominem: I find that theists do indeed do beg the question in assuming a[ metaphsycal ] start to the universe , that we are the results of some god’s mind, that they use redundancy in affirming a god behind nature for the work of natural selection and so-called miracles, violating the razor. I have show all this here in posts . It is not that theists cannot be logical at all or elsewhere, but somewhere in their arguments they commit fallacies. I know only of one atheist one that Nielsen mentions.Sure they have faulty premises, but logical fallacies lie therein.    Now on the matter of purpose , I use the definition that William T. Keeton use in’Elements of Biological Science,” Teleology is the docrtine that processes of nature are purposive and directed toward some goal.” He states before that"Anthropomorphic or teleological thinking has no place in a scientific study of animal behavior.” He states that it is hard :wink: to scrub all such expressions because of language limitations.  But as my signature states also, I do not have the last word and one can fault my premises. I rely on philosophers and Austin Cline for arguments that I alter rolleyes  .  I thank all for reading my posts :D

 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2007 06:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2007-01-05

Is god logical?

Hi there. This is my second post in Point of Inquiry (I promisse not to number my posts anymore!).

I’m no professional on this matters, just a guy who likes to think about these things… well, here’s my opinion:

1) You can’t prove the existence or no existence of god. If a thing is not acessible to human experience, how do you prove that it does not exist? Of course, this line of thought does not prove that exists.

2) So, I think, talk about existence of god is nonsense from a scientific view point, because it cannot be tested. But, the way I see it, there is another problem: under the will and power of god, EVERYTHING is possible… turning water into wine, walking above the water, suspending the laws of physics… In these conditions, we just can’t use god to predict anything with a minimal degree of confidence. I can be crossing the road, a car comes very fast, I see it to late and think “this is it… bye bye world”... but god, because he likes me (or has something more terrible in store for me, who knows?), makes the car disapear. Who could have predicted that?

God is to logical, everything under is power is possible… so we can’t use him to make predictions

That is one of my problems with belivers in god

Pjay

 Signature 

"Truth emerges more readly from error than from confusion" F. Bacon (I think!)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2007 08:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Pjay, your first point is quite true, however, I don’t bother with trying to prove or disprove the concept of a god.  Rather, I can find no instance where the concept of a god can contribute anything.  As such, I see no value to including (wasting time on) the concept.  Therefore, while I accept the term “Atheist”, I really consider myself a Non-theist. 

Your second point, lack of any predictive ability is in agreement with my view of the concept not contributing anything.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2007 09:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2007-01-05

Can’t agree more with you! I don’t spend any time trying to prove god’s existence or inexistence (some of my friends do). But I do not see clearly the diference between “atheist” and “non-theist”. Are they not the same? It’s like saying that nature is not “amoral” but “non-moral”... Unless you mean with “Non” that you are an agnostic; or, even if there is a god, you don’t care a bit about him. Is that it?

I guess it depends on the concept of god. Consider Spinoza’s “god”: not a single trace of antropomorphism, so empty of it that to many he his, in fact, an atheist. Although some Buddhists could be considered more atheistic than him, for they supose that there is no ultimate reality (ultimate reality being the god of many philosophers and mystics). But that was Buddha being afraid of people misunderstanding the concept of atman of the hindus (according to Alan Watts).

My position is this: even if there is a ultimate reality, it is not god!

I don’t know if i’m being clear…

Pjay

 Signature 

"Truth emerges more readly from error than from confusion" F. Bacon (I think!)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 January 2007 02:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  908
Joined  2005-01-14

Re: Is god logical?

[quote author=“Paulo Pinheiro”]1) You can’t prove the existence or no existence of god. If a thing is not acessible to human experience, how do you prove that it does not exist?

The problem is that most Christians insist that God IS “accessible to human experience”, in the form of miracles, answering prayers and so forth.  This is the sort of thing I seem to spend most of my time arguing with them about.  Do miracles really happen, or is there another explanation?  Does God really answer prayers, or is it just the wishful thinking of someone who desperately wants to believe?

2) God is to logical, everything under is power is possible… so we can’t use him to make predictions.

Exactly so!

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 5
3