![]() |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Afro, alot of your post seems to be rather close minded and an attack at religion in general and an attack at my credibility and the credibility of what is at hand. I don't see why this argument has to be personal.
Quote:
Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument. It's just simple logical look at the need for there to be something outside of the universe. You don't need to tie it to Christianity. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
I've read all of this material, and the vast majority of books and arguments on these topics before. It was an obsession of mine for years when I was a Christian. I understand where you're coming from. I think the problem here is this: If you wanted to objectively show that Christianity was the one and only universally true world view, you've got a hell of a lot more problems then simply dealing with the origin of the universe. Even if you could objectively show the prime mover in the origin of all creation was something equivalent of a mind with processes differentiating it from simple laws of mechanics, this has very little connection with Christianity. The entire foundation of Christianity is based on Jesus and his teachings and the LORD and the word he has laid out for mankind through his son - most of which is contained in the bible (NT, since Christianity shares the OT or Torah with Judaism). And you're going to run into problem, after problem, after problem trying to logically demonstrate any of this as being literally true. Metaphorically or allegorically true, sure, you could argue that creation is allegorically true, but how that relates to reality remains ambiguous and unexplained. You'll run yourself into circles forever. Anyway, I don't want to get too into specifics here, since this isn't a religious discussion per say, but all of my points made from the previous post stand. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
I get what you are saying until you started on the foundation of Christianity.
What will I have problems explaining as literally true? Creation is one of the few examples I can understand your point of view. I mean creation to me is defiantly a grey area. Personally I black and white I can logically know that God literally created the universe. I have trouble trying to discern how much of Genesis is literal. However I do feel that the main point of Genesis is not lost to much on the literal meaning. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
If you interpret that as an attack, then I submit that you do not understand your faith or the difference between the function of faith and the function of reason. If you see me calling creationism psuedoscience as an attack on religion, you really don't get it. The closest thing to an attack against religion was when I tried to point you to humanistic atheism. But I was being totally sincere. You seem to desire something out of religion but still want to adhere to logic and reason. That would allow you to do so and would also not leave you in a position such as this, trying to claim how reasoned your position is when the fact is that all that you argue for is based on a foundation of unverifiable faith. Build logic around it all you want, but it all starts with faith in the unverifiable. Quote:
|
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
How is trying to think about faith logically against religion? I think logic is incredibly important to religion. How can I fully engage in a relationship with a God that I do not logically understand? Dosn't a belief with logic behind it mean so much more then an empty belief? Obviously belief in a faith can not come purely from logic, but in no way do I believe that true faith should be illogical. My original topic of discussion was the idea that we are created with the ability to comprehend logic for a reason. I wanted to hear what you guys think of that notion. I am curious if you see the ability to discern logic as just evolutionary. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
The problem is you can show almost nothing in the bible to be empirically true. The original Hebrew texts have been translated and re-translated numerous times, so to begin with it's hard to even identify what pieces of scripture could be considered the word of God and which are man made manipulations. Not all of the original Hebrew is understood to begin with. Also, there is no way to differentiate between which parts of the bible are allegorical and which parts are literal. The only way you'd be able to demonstrate anything would be to take a literal interpretation of the ENTIRE bible, but obviously you can't do that because you can empirically demonstrate numerous claims in the bible to be false, so if it were true it can't be literal. And thus begins the endless circle I described. The very reason people continue to debate this issue. There is no way of demonstrating Christianity to be correct and attempting to do so leads to problem after problem. That's not to say we can't continue to deepen our understanding of the universe around us, whether it be through an entirely scientific perspective or a theological one. I know for me personally, it is the understanding of the universe and the truth it contains that is important to me, not which criteria this truth happens to meet. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
As for the old testament original texts I know not all that much. The new testament though is incredibly hard to refute from an authenticity of sources point of view and is incredibly easy to understand. Quote:
The only real problem I can see is where the Bible claims an empirically measurable fact as a belief and is wrong. I mean the bible describes the Earth as flat, but it in no way was claiming to be correct about it, it is just a consequence of it being written in a certain context. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also if our logic is accidental how can we believe what we obtain from the logic to be true? Therefore a belief in accidental logic is illogical. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
"Why do we as humans find such a joy and beauty in logic? Can we really ride it off as purely evolutionary? As purely survivalist?
I obviously believe that this side of our being is a gift from God, I believe that we are given an ability to understand so that we can appreciate and take awe in the awesomeness in our creator. How can one with out the ability to think enjoy? How can one with out the ability to think praise and love?" Sure, I can ride it off as evolutionary, why not? I like logic because it's another form of problemsolving, to me, that aims to unveil truth and understanding about various things in our world. You need to be careful though when it comes to proofs, since it's easy to fall into the trap of using assumptions we don't necessarily know to be valid/true/sound/whatever. I'll just add though that just because we are able to think/appreciate/understand/enjoy things, it does not mean it had a purpose or that it was with the intention of "seeing the awesomeness of our creator." I can just as easily argue that they're all the results of physical/evolutionary processes and necessary conditions, and with plenty of evidence. Be waaaryyyy of the loooggggiiiccc |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Rubix, I put the question out there and a potential answer. I never said I was right. Im wanting to see your "arguments that they're all the results of physical/evolutionary processes and necessary conditions, and with plenty of evidence."
It honestly dosn't strike anyone that as far as we empirically know we are the only ones in the universe who have a sense of beuaty? We are the only ones who find delight in pondering about how our universe works? Where we came from and why? Making fun of Creationists....errr, opps. Does anyone want to show me how pretty paintings have helped our survival? |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
@OP: Because being logical is better than being illogical. There's really no critical thinking involved here...
|
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
You're looking too much into end-case specifics and disregarding them as purely survival and therefore unreasonable. Anything can be argued or broken down into evolutionary subcomponents from what I can tell. There can still be advantageous OR adverse side functions to a given evolutionary trait, and as long as they don't have any direct impact on the evolutionary process itself, there's no reason for them to change. In this case, an appreciation for art.
For example, why do humans sense beauty in the first place? What things tend to be beautiful, and what things tend to make us turn away? I would argue that it could be entirely linked to evolution. We tend to see beauty in vitality, in good health, happiness, etc. We can look at a lush forest and see "beauty" because we know that such forests are full of life and good health. Good for survival? Of course. We see "beauty" in certain humans when they appear to be "prettier," where "pretty" tends to be a combination of things that indicate the presence of genetically-favorable, healthier traits. Survival trait? Sure. We see "beauty" in problem-solving when we gain understanding of things around us, which can be a function of evolution, as intelligent beings are better equipped to survive than non-intelligent beings given a certain environment (as is the case in all evolution). Survival trait? Yes. So we can derive this notion of "beauty" from many evolutionary factors, since we tend to find favorable notions beautiful and unfavorable notions not as beautiful or even ugly by comparison. So, we have these preferences/affinities/inclinations for various things, and art can be seen as an "outlet." It's not strictly the notion that "we evolved to like pretty paintings which helped us survive," but rather that the paintings are pretty because we've evolved to find certain attributes beautiful, and a painting is a good way for us to relay that beauty. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Blah I want to edit that post to improve the eloquence but I tend to get lazy and type things very stream-of-consciousness style without really caring about how I've structured it. I hope you understand what points I'm trying to relay, here.
|
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Yeap, I can completely agree with that. While it dosn't disprove a higher cause for beauty it certain weakens its argument for it.
Damn it, im trying to find some form of a counter example where a sense of beuaty dosn't help survival. Perhaps the beauty of contemplating the vastness of the universe isn't really survivalist. I guess even inner beauty can be seen as a genetically favorable. I might sleep on this one and see if I can help myself out here. The best argument I can see here is that if beauty is a form of survival then it will point back to the one who created survival. It feels like a pretty secondary argument though. Edit: haha, MUSIC! what is survivalist about music? Does music really lead itself to the wanting of desirable evolutionary traits? |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
"God" is something we can't disprove, especially when most people use "God" as something to explain what we don't know. Unless we somehow knew everything there is to know about our universe/origin/etc, there will always be this notion of a "God" that could "potentially be behind everything." But, like Reach said, what exactly, then, are you calling "God," and why even call it that?
|
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
For example, there is no 'a priori' way of knowing if the bible was being literal about the Earth being flat. The only way to see whether or not this is true is to...well, figure out if the Earth is flat or not. Of course it isn't, so then it becomes IN HINDSIGHT glaringly obvious that it was written in the bible as a reflection of the times, in context etc. However, prior to this knowledge you have no sound way of demonstrating which parts can be taken seriously and which ones cannot. You can say what you want about the intent of the author, and this is true to some extent, but it doesn't change what I just said on a more general level. There is still no way to demonstrate anything faith based in this context. Also, since you bring up the New Testament and describe it as easily understood (Which is, I suppose true compared to the OT), I present to you these passages: James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. Matthew 4:4 Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. And again in the OT: Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. So, how do you deal with passages like these? It's quite clear they lead to numerous contradictions, which bring us back to exactly the points I was trying to make - Religion is a system that is set up such that you cannot demonstrate it is true nor falsify it. Quote:
You're taking something very complex and offering, what appears to be a simplistic explanation for it that you do understand because you personally cannot find any other explanations as to why this could be. If you study evolutionary psychology you will find numerous examples of things that are byproducts or consequences of other developments, and thus they help our survival in an indirect way. This would be one of them, stemming primarily from cultural development. I could write an entire essay on this, but I won't. I suggest you research it on your own. However, appreciation of beauty and the appearance of beauty stems from both our genes and cultural development, and their intricate interactions from the time we are born. Our genes prime us to find certain things attractive, and our cultures shape and transform this into its ultimate form. If you want to know where these innate predispositions come from and the development of our culture, you'll want to look towards evolutionary psychology. Quote:
|
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Reach how do those scriptures contradict? Call me slow but I have read them before and I feel as if I understand there meanings fairly well but I hardly see the contradiction...
As for the evolutionary psychology I defiantly can see how that would work. Rubix sort of touched on it but I can see there is even more to it. Quote:
I can see what you are saying. [Generic statement without a given basis] But logically looking through some of the evidence for and against the major religions of the world and Christianity certainly stands up to the test. [/] But religion will never be agreed on by logic alone. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
At one point, human's discovered ways to communicate with each other. At the time, language probably helped with creating strategies for hunting and whatnot. As time goes by, Ben Franklin discovers electricity and through the "magic" of language, he informs us what, why, and how to use this awesome discovery. Nowadays, every time a human discovers something, it is immediately sent through the earth's proverbial circulatory system of human brains, and through the many discoveries and inventions of man, we have evolved into a species where as long as one human learns something, all humans learn it. When a baby is born in the year 2010, he will be born into a world that contains all the knowledge that has ever been developed by any person that was born before him. I'll try to be the only one to use this thread the way you wanted it to be used, rather than go off on how illogical many of your beliefs are, even though that is what I believe. I will say this one thing though: how is it logical to understand that "God always was" and not think beyond that? It's logical to say the Big Bang couldn't have happened on its own, because there is always a catalyst for everything; however you read that God has always existed, therefore he's an exception... I need a little help with that one. |
Re: My latest infatuation with logic.
Quote:
Edit: 3am and sleepy time. Thanks for the discussion all, I will look forward to picking it up tomorrow. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution