Can logic and reasoning ever be applied correctly to the debate over the existence of God?

http://www.modern-thinker.co.uk/7%20-%20antinomies.htm#logic

quote:

Limitations to Logic

Kant considered that the antinomies were natural contradictions in our reason. This view is false. The apparent contradictions arise from the attempt to apply non-relative logic to relative concepts.

Because modern analytical logic was ‘liberated’ from the psychological ideas of theorists such as John S. Mill, so it has to face the necessary consequences : it cannot analyse metaphysical and ontological issues. Non-relative logic (that is, analytical logic) can handle mathematics and technological requirements, but not meanings, nor values.

Analytical logic is primarily based upon two operations:

either X = A

or . . . . . . X = not A

These operations cannot always be applied to relative propositions. To argue that two relative terms are identical is often fallacious, and to argue that two relative terms are different can be fallacious as well. They may be identical in the signifier but different in the signified, or vice versa. Conversely, if a logical argument leads to contradictory results then we are likely to be dealing with relative terms.

The world is a relative world. The world is a world of relationships. Therefore causal processes are relative processes. Since cause is relative then so is the effect. The problem for a logical analysis is that relative objects have no distinct beginning and no distinct end. Relative things are neither completely objective nor completely subjective.

What a relativistic argument implies is that from any particular perspective then either X = A or X is not = A.

But as the perspective changes, so too does X !

Logical analysis cannot deal with terms that are changeable. As the term changes so it slips free from the confines of analytical logic.



All past philosophical ideas, all past philosophical solutions to problems, are subject to change and reformulation as the intellectual vocabulary develops.

The traditional view of the ego is redundant to modern needs.

Another good link:

http://www.geocities.com/goodcat999999/logic.html

quote:

First of all, logic is not logical. By that, I mean to say that the decision to rely on logic in order to make decisions is not a logical one. Further, even if the system of logic is accepted, to decide what is logically true requires the use of non-logical thinking. This is because of the fact that logic relies on assumptions, an idea which is certainly not original to me. Although it is a rather simple idea, I believe it has profound implications, especially in cases in which we would not think of using it. These implications have been especially reinforced in me because of the process I undertook to come to this conclusion.



[This message has been edited by cerebraldisorder (edited 03-08-2005).]

I dont believe that logic can lead any metaphysic to validity. I do believe though that if reality is interpreted as subjective, phenomenalogical, and equated to experience, that we can make a certain "warranted" inference that God is the causal force behind that reality, or IMHO, equivilant to it. I use the term "warranted inference" lightly. Reality could very well be pure phenomenology and nothing else, for the sake of nothing (certainly nothing we can understand). But the profound sense of being "caused", "brought about", "forced into existence"**, and the way the mind reduces things to categories and causal sequences, I believe it is a valid inference that we do not cause our own existence, and whatever does cause our existance we can call God - even if reality is self-propelling (IE not caused per se), then we may call that process God. God = That which is other than us, man behind the curtain so to speak. We can legitimately infer him in this way, but like all inferences we can never effectively prove this. We can certainly never define or "identify" with this concept.

To reiterate though, you cannot effectively use reason to conclude the existence of any "mind independant" thing, God included.



**note I'm not using the term created, because that is a term that by definition implies both a "creator" as well as a separation of the created from the creator, I am implying no such thing)



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-09-2005).]

You can and actually must apply logic to everything because, frankly, you have no other choice. Even to the existence of God. If you or any proclaimed philosopher can come up with a better way that does not shatter your sanity, we're all ears. Until then, we will use logic and start with an assumption.

Read the original post. Logic is limited. Its really only a practical tool. It can tell us nothing about metaphysics . Reason and logic cannot trandscend experience ans subjectivism.

Any logical system is only as effective as its root axioms, but the root axioms themselves rely on logic for validity. They are therefore always either taken on faith, or as heurstic. Logic is never certain outside its own predetermined definitions.

[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-09-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

I dont believe that logic can lead any metaphysic to validity.

No, but it can certainly remove the "meta" from it http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

And there are ways to communicate insight without using logic and reasoning. Poetry for example can get a message accross without logical proof.

A good example of this is in Buddhist "koans" where a riddle is stated to invoke a deep understanding, while literally communicating nothing.

A common one that everyone's heard before is "If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound". This is meant to place emphasis on the illusion of duality between subject and object, yet no exposition could make you understand more than understanding that Koan. Exposition could certainly elaborate on this, but the meaning is every bit as effectualized

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

Read the original post. Logic is limited. Its really only a practical tool. It can tell us nothing about metaphysics . Reason and logic cannot trandscend experience ans subjectivism.

Any logical system is only as effective as its root axioms, but the root axioms themselves rely on logic for validity. They are therefore always either taken on faith, or as heurstic. Logic is never certain outside its own predetermined definitions.



As long as the use of logic has immense practical significance, I don't see its effectivity threatened. The root axioms can always be improved or they can be evaluated based on the results they produce and thus be modified accordingly.

The question is...does anyone have an alternative for logic? Or is this discussion a waste of time?

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

No, but it can certainly remove the "meta" from it http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



I think thats ignoring the actual question.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

As long as the use of logic has immense practical significance, I don't see its effectivity threatened. The root axioms can always be improved or they can be evaluated based on the results they produce and thus be modified accordingly.

The question is...does anyone have an alternative for logic? Or is this discussion a waste of time?

Alternative? Not really, but it is still limited. And how you are describing improving it lends nothing to its ability to deal with metaphysics. Logic cannot take itself to seriously. Its a tool relative to discourse and science, and a vital, indespensible one at that. But it cannot lead us to knowledge of metaphysics, or provide us with certain truths about a world independant of our experience.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-09-2005).]

As long as there are no alternatives, logic's limitations are not more than funny and irrelevant side-effects.

What I meant to say earlier with "removing the meta" is that I don't believe in metaphysics as an actual independent entity. I think that's a name for phenomena we cannot yet understand, but are definitely not beyond our experience because if they were, they would never be documented. Like telepathy. Ghosts. Or God. We cannot come to any knowledge of those things through logic, because we lack the proper axioms/assumptions/perspective. That will eventually be discovered through logic.

Metaphysics, by definition means "above" or beyond physics. Its refers precisely to ideas about extra-experiential reality.

Topics include: God, Free Will, Souls, and Substance.

Its the branch of philosophy through which we attempt to explain our empirical reality, by attempting to go outside that reality and categorize it. Its an impossible task, like an eye looking at itself (sans mirror). You cannot go outside of experience to explain experience, as you arrive at an infinite logical regression (as every thought, feeling, perception, deduction, inference, conclusion etc.. is always contained within subjective experience).

This is the limit of logic. It is a tool of the comprehending brain, and has no applicability outside of that. All axioms are either taken on faith, used as heuristics, or inferred or deduced from other axioms. There is no base certain Axiom from which all or any particular "absolute truth" may be discerned. Its a relativist system.

Logics pragmatism is its reality, and romanticising it demonstrates little else.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-09-2005).]

Incidentally the view that logic will lead us to all the secrets of the universe went out with the enlightenment. Any philosopher since Kant has had to deal with the limits of Logic, and by today the very notion of logic representing anything other than a pragmatic tool for solving empiraclly based problems, with preset axioms, has been refuted into dust numerous times over.

Dont get me wrong, its an invaluable tool, but there are certain things it simply cannot do.

You're not saying anything different than me in the end. I'll give you that some of the metaphysics "topics" may stay in that field forever as a strange side effect of the brain. I'll concede to your definition of metaphysics then. But it is a fact that science has many times brought an understanding to a matter of metaphysics.

My point is that everything is or can be comprehended as long as it's not uniquely subjective. By that I mean that if a phenomenon is witnessed or affects a number of people in an unquestionable way by those not witnessing or unaffected, then logic should apply to it for its understanding as it is definitely a part of experienced reality. Telepathy falls into that category, God does not. You can make indirect links to such entities though, so you can still use logic. For example the Bible is linked to God and is a part of our experience. You can apply logic to comprehend the Bible and make deductions about a metaphysical entity.

I think you're walking a slippery slope to be honest. "shared" events, are ultimately "the perception of shared events". "Consensus" is ultimately "the perception of consensus". Our perception of consensus does nothing to affirm the certainty of logical axioms. Logic is a faculty of mind, and of the biological brain. Logic only tells us something about the world outside our heads if we can first prove that world exists in a certain form (which we cant). It doesnt matter precisely WHAT we're talking about. Logic is only as good as its starting points, which are never certain. In my opinion it is a problem solving tool for the survival of the organism and nothing more.

Further, Science has developed by beginning with empirical "facts" that for the purpose of science are held as heurstically self- evident (via our best possible measures). It relies on preaccepted taxomonies and causal relationships, to which logic is then applied to arrive at particular conclusions. Science always operates in a relativist framework (paradigms), and the knowledge it generates is relative to our initial starting points. Beyond the pragmatic use of scientific "discovery", science gives us no tools to say WHAT we are actually talking about, or WHY we are talking about it. Logic and Science can NEVER answer these questions in the absolute sense that certain truth demands.

I apprectiate your take on it, but I think its limited and missing the bigger picture.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-09-2005).]

Think of it this way, pretend nothing in the universe existed except for logic (this isnt really possible to do, but pretend). How would it be possible for the universe to logically prove its own existance? From what point would the universe be able to deduce or infer itself as real? From what independant observation deck could the totality of all things judge itself? It is incomprehensible that this problem could ever be resolved.

It could never do it without hitting a regression, because it would have to assume its own existance (as axiomatic) before proving it. It would have to take itself as self-evident, which is not logical at all.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-09-2005).]

It depends on how you look at it:

Logic in my mind is the peice by piece building of an intwined theory or theories, kinda like a puzzle that makes a whole picture. It is what you can see, smell, hear taste, and touch. You can't logically prove the existence of god.

Reasoning on the other hand is like logic except with a little imagination involved, maybe not so intricate as logic, but in the base sense the same. You can't always see/smell/taste/hear/touch what you reason to exist.

That's my two cents.

Dagnabitt, since you cannot present anything that offers more certainty in understanding than logic, then all this talk about logic's limitations is useless and pointless. If you are looking for an absolute truth, then bad luck, you can never find it through logic as you said. But why don't we stick to what we can actually find and not be bothered by what we cannot, because that bigger picture you mentioned may have no effect on us. Missing it is missing nothing. If it could affect us, we could use logic on it with its effect as starting point.

About your logic as the whole universe example, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. You're just highlighting logic's limitation to function without a reference point. That's fine and I agree. But in our universe there are many reference points, and its our only shot for an understanding. Doubting our most elementary tool for understanding, after having based a millenia-old civilization on it, is quite a bad idea.

Atheism is logical.

Why?

Because lack of evidence is not evidence in itself, but is reason to believe that the inevidenced subject is false.



There is as much proof as for a god as for undetectable purple cows which fly behind clouds.

Now, by the false logic people use for believeing in a god, we could also believe in these cows.

Prove the cows don't exist, prove that god doesn't exist. Otherwise, by the logic of theists, the cows also exist. And by the logic of the agnostics, the cows might exist.





Anyway, for those who are religious, you cannot debate faith, as, by definition, it is not debatable.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

Dagnabitt, since you cannot present anything that offers more certainty in understanding than logic, then all this talk about logic's limitations is useless and pointless. If you are looking for an absolute truth, then bad luck, you can never find it through logic as you said. But why don't we stick to what we can actually find and not be bothered by what we cannot, because that bigger picture you mentioned may have no effect on us. Missing it is missing nothing. If it could affect us, we could use logic on it with its effect as starting point.

About your logic as the whole universe example, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. You're just highlighting logic's limitation to function without a reference point. That's fine and I agree. But in our universe there are many reference points, and its our only shot for an understanding. Doubting our most elementary tool for understanding, after having based a millenia-old civilization on it, is quite a bad idea.



Yeah, but a "fallacious certainty" in the wrong hands is the cause of many of the worlds problems. People that claim certainty in God, King, Country, Sect, Culture, etc... rely on axiomatic logic to promote fundamentalism and power dynamics. There is a very real human consequence in putting too much faith in logic. We need to recognize it as a tool only, and not a system that can guarentee us certainty that can go unquestioned. A misunderstanding of logic is at the root of many of the problems we face today.

And admitting logic is flawed inherently means that you have to continually take this into consideration when evaluating logical axioms and conclusions. You cant just ignore it because its unappealing. Just because it is our best tool for figuring out problems does not mean that we can give it any more credit than it is do. Why do you assume that just because it is usefull it should go uncriticized?

quote:Originally posted by The_Reckoning:

Atheism is logical.

Why?

Because lack of evidence is not evidence in itself, but is reason to believe that the inevidenced subject is false.



There is as much proof as for a god as for undetectable purple cows which fly behind clouds.

Now, by the false logic people use for believeing in a god, we could also believe in these cows.

Prove the cows don't exist, prove that god doesn't exist. Otherwise, by the logic of theists, the cows also exist. And by the logic of the agnostics, the cows might exist.





Anyway, for those who are religious, you cannot debate faith, as, by definition, it is not debatable.

It depends on how you define god. The argument from first cause for the existence of god as a "prime mover" is very logical. But there is always room for criticism regardless.

If you conceive of God as a cranky patriarch that lives in the sky, then no, there is no sound logic to suopport this.

I agree with what you say. And I'm sure that science, at least, acknowledges the fact that it is as certain as its axioms are closer to the truth. It's a good thing to doubt and be ready to reevaluate things at any moment.

Still, criticism for logic beyond the above is just an exercise for the brain, nothing more. You face the flaws and if unable to correct them, then you move on. I think we're on the same side here, yes?

I'm not sure, but I think we've both said what we need to say. Hi five.

First of all, I would like to acknowledge how well structured this thread is. The topic is an excellent one – one that is not too often thought about (in the circles I am involved in at least). Overall, very refreshing to read and see that Totse is still a place to discuss, and not argue. Ironic I should say this, I know.

Addressing the topic: I agree with both sides (dagnabitt as well as elfstone). Logic is based on presupposed axioms. This is true. But to say that logic “Logic and Science can NEVER answer these questions in the absolute sense that certain truth demands.” is to be skating on thin ice for two reasons:

a) such absolute statements are always dangerous and often wrong because everything is relative (irony noted). “The earth IS flat.” was a very reasonable statement, but, nonetheless, wrong (lol, as far as science goes).



b) you are making this statement based on logic, which is to contradict your argument that logic only tells us about things to do with experience and not with metaphysics (you are using logic to argue a metaphysical idea. In other words, you are using a logical argument to discredit logic, if you understand what I mean.

My main contribution to this thread is that things that are soon to happen in the world of science, mathematics, and philosophy are unforeseeable. Oftentimes, the intelligent community, if it can be termed as such, is surprised with the results it gets. For example, quantum mechanics experiments revealed baffling properties that were anything but expected. There is always a possibility. For example, logic could possibly prove logic, as an immense loop in which a certain logic proves its antecedent, or axiom. This would make logic an infinite loop that has no need for a presupposed axiom as every piece would be an axiom as well as a result of that axiom.

Thanks to the topic started for posting this thread. It opened up my mind more than any other thread.

"Thanks to the topic started for posting this thread. It opened up my mind more than any other thread."

As did it mine. I think it would rock if Lost archived this at some point in the future. This is by far the best thread I have ever read on totse.

quote:Originally posted by chaski86:

[B]...But to say that logic “Logic and Science can NEVER answer these questions in the absolute sense that certain truth demands.” is to be skating on thin ice for two reasons:

a) such absolute statements are always dangerous and often wrong because everything is relative (irony noted).

I dont understand you here. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

My point is that Logical systems are internally self-referential necessarily. The validity of any one axiom relies on the validity af its supporting axioms, which are equally dependant and so on into infinity. It is a system that relies ultimately on pragmatism and heuristics. Even if its rules are set, its content is always ultimately ambiguous and undefinable beyond convention. The quest for God here becomes an antimony (unresolvable). Logic is "internal", Metaphysics (god) are "external". There can be no resolution here. Logic cannot bring us to God. The only axiom you could deduce the existance of God from would be the very proposition that God exists - which is redundant. Here logic meets its own demise, so to speak.

I would suggest reading Kant's "critique of pure reason",(or about it because its a bitch to read) specifically referring to Logical antimonies.

quote: “The earth IS flat.” was a very reasonable statement, but, nonetheless, wrong (lol, as far as science goes)

We just have made new discoveries (new axioms) RELATIVE to old ones. Our logical conclusions have followed suit (becoming new axioms etc...) Everything we believe now, if history is any lesson, will be seen completely different one day. Logic gives us a method for deducing relative truths only (contextually defined and relevant). It cannot (its impossible) be applied to absolute metaphysical truths that are DEFINED outside of the logical-empirical nexus.



quote: b) you are making this statement based on logic, which is to contradict your argument that logic only tells us about things to do with experience and not with metaphysics (you are using logic to argue a metaphysical idea. In other words, you are using a logical argument to discredit logic, if you understand what I mean.

LOL, you think like me. And you're right, using logic to discredit logic is paradoxical, but doesnt the self-refutation of the idea at the same time demonstrate the certain fragility of logic. IE the paradox can go both ways, adding ambiguity, and resolving the issue on the side of uncertainty.

1)Logic is inherently flawed (not provding absolute or non-relative certainty"

2)This is a logical syllogism

3)Therefore this syllogism is inherently flawed.

Now of course the opposite of this is

Logic is inherently true

This is a logical syllogism

Therefore this syllogism is true

But we know that logic is not inherently true, because of all the reasons and objections alrady sited. It has been logically ruled out that logic can be inherently true. So we must accept the first syllogism to carry more weight. So in this case, the paradox proves the rule.

Am I reaching here?



quote:For example, logic could possibly prove logic, as an immense loop in which a certain logic proves its antecedent, or axiom. This would make logic an infinite loop that has no need for a presupposed axiom as every piece would be an axiom as well as a result of that axiom.

That would be a self-evident proposition, and by definiton is not logical. Its the equivalant of saying:

If x, than x.

Its redundant. Logic is intrinsically hierarchical.

By the way, regarding my little syllogism up there, i may be full of shit, it made sense as I wrote it but i'm philosophizing here. Criticism welcome.

[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-11-2005).]

dagnabitt & elfstone:

Thank you for a marvelous discussion, very insightful and thought-provoking.

I look forward to reading more as this thread hopefully continues.

I remain faithful to my first post. Logic could, perhaps, someday loop – it could expand or change to the point where it might prove itself. This sounds contradictory and illogical but then so did the earth being anything but flat. You would logically fall off the earth if it were round. Even this simple, self-apparent statement had to be revised.

One question I would like to ask is, where does logic come from? Does it come from the human ability for ‘common sense’ or is it something that humans have ‘discovered’ to be in nature and in ordinary events? That might help answer the question posed in this thread.

Ahh, paradoxes. I see these everywhere and don’t know quite what to think about them. “God is not all powerful because he cannot build a wall that he cannot jump.” Or “This sentence is false.” What does this imply? Since a paradox exists in the sentence does this mean that the sentence doesn’t exist?

I think part of the problem with paradoxes (and with the argument for or against logic) is the limitations to the human language. Language is partially what makes these paradoxes contradict themselves and, therefore, makes them flawed. But, when language is not the problem, then what is? What is going on here? Lol…Logically, this shouldn’t happen.

irrelevant note: Hexadecimal, since your on this thread I would like to ask where one of your threads, or one you participated in extensively, is. It is "evolution vs. creationism", if that narrows it down at all. It was a great debate and I would very much like to find it again. BTW, do you have any higher education in the theory of evolution?

quote:I remain faithful to my first post. Logic could, perhaps, someday loop – it could expand or change to the point where it might prove itself.

No it cant, its impossible given what logic actually is. Its not a matter of simply believing "one day it may happen". Its not a possibility given what we have to work with. It is a LOGICAL impossibilty (irony noted see syllogisms above).

quote: This sounds contradictory and illogical but then so did the earth being anything but flat.

Not the same thing, that example, or any other depends on empirical observation and applied logic. Using logic against itself does not require observation or experience, only "pure reason". Also, metaphysics is a philsophical discipline, the metaphysicians whole argument is that they can "think" there way to God. This went out with Nietzsche (with Empiricism really, but becoming standard philsophical belief with Nietzsche), and hasnt been understood in the same way since. All attempts at metaphysics are grounded in some sort of faith. So feel free to "remain faithful to your belief", but I think if you had a better understanding you would see things clearer. Please dont take that as arrogant, i just really feel your missing the point to some degree.



quote:One question I would like to ask is, where does logic come from?

It depends on how you see reality. If you are a phenomenolgist, you see logic as inherent to the unity that is reality. If you are a dualist you see logic as existing "in" the "external" world, as a faculty of "mind", or both. Kant explains it best. He describes logic as transcendental, and by that he means " a precondition of the possibilty of the experience of reality as we have it." It takes a long time to fully grasp exactly what he means by this (but its a very worthwhile thing to learn).

http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Philosophy/Kant/cpr/



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-11-2005).]

Dagnabitt, I am in overall agreement with most of what your saying. I am simply playing devil's advocate. I agree that, by definition, logic will not be able to prove logic. But I also think that humans are extremely limited in their thinking (including you, including me).

I recently read of a philosophy that should have been apparent to me much sooner - that of skepticism. This is what I am, I have decided: skeptic, agnostic, atheist. I believe they all mix quite nicely (although the definitions I should look into because I got them from a Josh McDowell book, and his stuff is usually shit).

What I am saying is that I am very skeptical of just about everything coming from human understanding (irony again noted). Example: I have read that on a quantum level, particles behave quite differently. Some tend to 'push through a wall' without having sufficient energy to do so. Sort of like a tennis ball shooting through an iron wall with only so much as a soft push. And this is my point - that even though the very rules of logic state that logic cannot prove itself, just as the laws of physics require enough energy for the particle to penetrate the wall, sometimes shit happens that we aren't aware of... weird shit that shouldn't happen.

Again, I am in overall agreement, but, as seen countless times before, shit happens that we just don't think could ever happen.

Fucking quantum physics. If it isnt the thorn in the side of anyone whose ever tried to figure out anything. Good rebuttal man.

I dont know if that really applies to what we're talking about, but your right, it is notoriously illogical. (I dont know nearly enough about physics http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

quote:Originally posted by chaski86:

irrelevant note: Hexadecimal, since your on this thread I would like to ask where one of your threads, or one you participated in extensively, is. It is "evolution vs. creationism", if that narrows it down at all. It was a great debate and I would very much like to find it again. BTW, do you have any higher education in the theory of evolution?

I tried to find the thread through the search function, but I post in here too often for a thread that old to show up. As to whether I have higher education on it or not, no I don't...I just read a ton of books both on religions and the sciences.

Something odd happens with particles that allows many of the laws of physics to APPARENTLY not apply...the space in between particles can allow for the electrons and the nucleus of an atom to avoid contact with others entirely...the chance of this happening is ridiculously small, but given the length of this universe's existence and the number of particles, it's possible, but extremely improbably that at any moment one of us could sink into the center of the earth...ridiculous shit if you think about it.

Ok, back to paradoxes.

"This sentence is false." - read this very carefully if it appears normal to you.

Then, someone please tell me what the fuck is going on here and in other situations with paradox present. Sorry for posting and reposting this, I just have never heard a good answer and would really like to hear some Totseans' opinions.

I would think that "This sentence is false," is a form of circular logic. It's grammatically correct, but it has no logical meaning.

Here's one that's been bothering me -- is it theoretically possible for everything to be possible? Assuming that everything is possible, then it would be impossible for something to be impossible. Is the statement "it's impossible for something to be impossible" self-contradictory? If not, how does it exclude itself from its prediction?

quote:Chaski - I recently read of a philosophy that should have been apparent to me much sooner - that of skepticism. This is what I am, I have decided: skeptic, agnostic, atheist.

"You see, the astounding prejudice demonstrated here by highly intelligent people draws our attention to the skepticism with which the Bible is treated by many people in all walks of life. A conviction that the Bible must be wrong from those at the highest level of academic excellence seems in turn to have been embraced at a popular level by many people who have barely glanced at the Bible but who feel sure that it is not to be trusted."

- http://www.rzim.org/publications/jttran.php?seqid=102

Oh, Digital Saviour - you're back.

I am not skeptical of the Bible, because skeptical implies doubt. I am skeptical of other philosphies becuase most contain at least an ounce of sense, reason, and logic. The Bible has none of these - just stories and guidelines.

I have glanced at the Bible, and, frankly, it only takes a glance to understand the basis of it. Fairytales don't require meticulous study.

quote:Originally posted by chaski86:

Ok, back to paradoxes.

"This sentence is false." - read this very carefully if it appears normal to you.

This reminds me of the scene in Labrynth when Jennifer Connelly's character figures out the "Liar paradox" during a confusing conversation with the two doors which will lead her to David Bowie's castle (or not).

She uses the Liar's paradox to figure out which door leads to the castle, and which leads to certain death.

"If we assume that the statement is true, everything asserted in it must be true. However, because the statement asserts that it is itself false, it must be false. So assuming that it is true leads to the contradiction that it is true and false. OK, can we assume that it is false? No, that assumption also leads to contradiction: if the statement is false, then what it says about itself is not true. It says that it is false, so that must not be true. Hence, it is true. Under either assumption, we end up concluding that the statement is both true and false. But it has to be either true or false (or so our common intuitions lead us to think), hence there seems to be a contradiction at the heart of our beliefs about truth and falsity." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

Chaski - A glance is certainly not enough. You can't even say that about a Dr. Seuss book, let alone the Bible !

And the fact that you seem dead set against reading it only proves your inability/unwillingness to think objectively.

I doubt you would have such a hard time reading the Qu'ran...

I just don't see how you can disregard something you don't understand so flippantly...which I can say with all fairness, since you haven't read it.

You are basically saying that you have formulated your opinions on assumptions and ignorance.

Assumption - Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition.

Ignorance - The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

If it ends up being true that God exists, and that the Bible is His divinely inspired word, would you consider it intelligent to remain willingly ignorant of such truth based on...? Well, what IS it based on ?

I tend to go back to fear. You still haven't pinpointed exactly what it is that stops you from reading it.

If for no other reason, why would you NOT read it, as you would any other historical book ?

I wasn't actually trying to pick a fight here. It certainly seems that you are hellbent on making this conversation into one, though.

You could stand to tone down the animosity a little. Just try and have a conversation.

Digital, please. The Bible maybe many things but historically credible is not one of them. In another thread I noticed that Hexadecimal pointed out to you that he's read the Bible thoroughly and he remains an atheist. So, who is the one who's read the Bible more objectively, he or you?

Also, please read my post on "Christianity dying out" thread about this matter.

Elf - Give me some examples of how the Bible cannot be used a historical reference.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Elf - Give me some examples of how the Bible cannot be used a historical reference.

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/inerrant.html

I am sure you will find yourself agreeing with the text of the link above. I am amazed actually that I was able to find it as most sites are either biased on one side of the argument or the other. This one is more closer to my own belief that while the Bible is not meant for historic or any kind of scientific reference, its uses lie elsewhere. Note however that I don't necessarily agree with what those uses are with christians.

EDIT: I think we are still on topic as this is closely related to whether logical/scientific study can bring understanding to a matter of metaphysics.

[This message has been edited by elfstone (edited 03-11-2005).]