Interfaith discussions

Interesting chart, I've not seen it before. And the Agnostic Theist.... I've been given crap by many for calling myself a nontheistic panentheist unitic.... thank you for the ammo.
juantoo3 said:
In fairness, when I made this statement it is absolutely with the presumption that G!d exists, so while I must admit that I cannot prove G!d exists, I can show the vast multitude of religious faiths around the world and throughout the past 100 thousand years and more, the greater majority of which are spent seeking some form of communion with a Divine source. Even if G!d cannot be shown to exist, clearly the effort spent by the whole of humanity to reconnect with the Divine is immense, and not simply focused into one tiny little corner of humanity. I offer the wide variety of religious faiths around the world and throughout time as my proof.

I beg anyone to logically refute this.
Click to expand...
Let me try.

In fairness, when I made this statement it is absolutely with the presumption that we have the absolute right to subjugate women and put others into slavery to do our bidding., so while I must admit that I cannot prove this right exists, I can show the vast multitude of civilizations around the world and throughout the past 100 thousand years and more, the greater majority of which are spent seeking some form of subjugating others for their benefit. Even if this right cannot be shown to exist, clearly the effort spent by the whole of humanity to keep others under their control, and not simply focused into one tiny little corner of humanity. I offer the wide variety of racism, bigotry, enslavement, imprisonment, taxation, and misogyny throughout time as my proof.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
I do agree that humanity has a need to find some form of divinity. As you say the majority people thru time have wanted a divine source to connect with. That says something (I'm not sure precisely what) about being human. It has nothing to do with logic, however. It has no relation as to whether any such divinity has ever existed.
Click to expand...

It does indeed say something about being human. There seems to be plenty enough subtle innuendo to go around for all of the faiths ("my G!d is better than your G!d," "How can your G!d be right when ours clearly is?"). This is also strong circumstantial evidence, the fact that so much of humanity has invested time and resources into the pursuit of phantoms...if G!d in fact does not exist, then the whole of humanity is (by definition) insane. (Atheists would not be exempt because of latent exposure through the generations and genetics.) ;)

Most people also want to believe that there is an afterlife, either that one goes to only to return for another run, or goes to permanently. The fact that most people desire this to be true has no relation to the probability that such an afterlife exists. Desiring something to be true and something actually being true has nothing to do with how many people want to believe it.

Can I prove it doesn't exist? No. Of course not. It is a part of the human condition that we can neither prove nor disprove this, no matter how many people want to believe it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I didn't broach the subject of afterlife...so that part is "bait and switch."
 
wil said:
Interesting chart, I've not seen it before. And the Agnostic Theist.... I've been given crap by many for calling myself a nontheistic panentheist unitic.... thank you for the ammo. Let me try.

In fairness, when I made this statement it is absolutely with the presumption that we have the absolute right to subjugate women and put others into slavery to do our bidding., so while I must admit that I cannot prove this right exists, I can show the vast multitude of civilizations around the world and throughout the past 100 thousand years and more, the greater majority of which are spent seeking some form of subjugating others for their benefit. Even if this right cannot be shown to exist, clearly the effort spent by the whole of humanity to keep others under their control, and not simply focused into one tiny little corner of humanity. I offer the wide variety of racism, bigotry, enslavement, imprisonment, taxation, and misogyny throughout time as my proof.
Click to expand...
Tsk tsk tsk...Wil, what am I going to do with you?

Rhetoric, evading the subject, faulty generalization, bait and switch.... Did you go out of your way to see just how much fallacy you could pack into one statement?

If there were a path with no shortcomings, there would be no need for any other paths...and clearly G!d saw fit to provide *many* paths "to" (or "for") His creation.
Click to expand...
clarification mine, -jt3

This was the original post in question Joe wished to challenge, the longer one I put into a more properly logical format, acknowledging my inability to "prove" G!d. I requested a "logical refutation." Are my lessons so far falling on deaf ears?

For emphasis I shall repeat...RHETORIC is a powerful tool for argument, but it has no credibility like logic does, because rhetoric does not have to be true. One can use opinion, emotion, half-baked "logic," innuendo, politics, zeitgeist, popular opinion, anything that sounds good as long as you compel the listener to your side of the story. Rhetoric wins arguments. But rhetoric is *not* nor will it ever be, LOGIC.
 
Last edited:
I recall reading about an innate need for man to invent G!d.... a desire as it were... much like our desires for power, sexual conquest... I'll have to look for that...

What I was doing, was simply saying in my utterly obtuse way that just because something has been going on for a hundred thousand years.... it clearly does not make it right.
 
Although I am an infidel I only need to consider Abrahamic religions and the offshoots to conclude - With well over four billion people believing there is a revealed God you can bet there IS a revealed God regardless what I or any other infidel may argue and regardless any scholarly discourse. Perception is reality! And then there is faith...

Religion, like a steak, is cooked to taste. The difference between the Church and a restaurant is - the Church always sales the sizzle!

Hope this fits interfaith discussion...
 
EdgyDolmen said:
Although I am an infidel but I only need to consider Abrahamic religions and the offshoots to conclude - With well over four billion people believing there is a revealed God you can bet there IS a revealed God regardless what I or any other infidel may argue and regardless any scholarly discourse. Perception is reality! And then there is faith...

Religion, like a steak, is cooked to taste. The difference between the Church and a restaurant is - the Church always sales the sizzle!

Hope this fits interfaith discussion...
Click to expand...

This is an excellent rhetorical opinion, but has almost nothing to do with the logical discussion at hand.

In case you missed it, this is an exercise in Logic...as it seems so many here believe they practice logic in their arguments. It is very seldom I see genuine logic here, and I tire of people saying "well it's only logical that..." and then go on to spout anything but actual logic.

You are most welcome to join in, but we have a particular point being addressed in a logical manner, for the exercise...with the hope that perhaps we can actually get to a point of having a genuine, sincere, logical discussion in the near future...hence the reason for the thread.
 
juantoo3 said:
LOL...that sums it up pretty well...but for the shades in between! The question is whether people can see themselves.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I personally admit to being agnostic, but I really have no interest or experience in the atheist-theist axis. I'm neither, agnostic in enough.
 
I am no fan of rhetoric posing as logic. ;) If you are more conversant on the subject of logic and are capable of leading the class, please do!
 
juantoo3 said:
I am no fan of rhetoric posing as logic. ;) If you are more conversant on the subject of logic and are capable of leading the class, please do
Click to expand...
Where did that come from? *** Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc...Carry on sir;)
 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logical

I'm not seeing anything referring to absolute truth, nor no possibility of incorrectness.

Going to reasoning,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reasoning
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason

If, then, else logic was called so because it followed the same principals. If this is true then this is also. or to throw a discussion such as theory, If this possibility exists, then this possibility exists as well. This isn't Rhetoric. It is explanation.

My point in this is that Logic is more of a path in itself. It dictates that if there is reasoning, there is a possibility. If there is no reasoning, there is no logic. As stated before, a logical conclusion about God(s) existence, is that anything is possible (yes agnostic), which leads to both answers the agnostic says is true are also logical conclusions.

Let's take something else for example. Is Bigfoot's existence true? yes, no, maybe. Maybe encompasses both other options as possibles. Due to information one might say there is no evidence of Bigfoot that is valid and answer no. With the evidence gathered the person has come to a logical conclusion. No bigfoot. (again there is no requirement to be absolutely correct). On the other hand, there is a growing amount of evidence showing that their existence is true. 1000s of sightings, a dozen or so blood samples, hair samples, voice recordings,etc. and many scientists believe it is entirely possible. Is not someone with these evidences well within the parameters of logic to say that Bigfoot exists. They have evidence that supports their claim. and there is no evidence to the contrary (as you said it is impossible to prove the negative of existence).

In conclusion, the definition of logic says that a logical statement only requires reasoning which means it contains evidences for such. Show me God exists. Fine, but don't ask it if you don't want to take a chance on having to understand and possibly at some point join my religion. If you ask for proof, I cannot do so without expressing my belief. Since I am trying to prove an unseen, I would have to use evidence of such things that are found in this existence. Such as the Quran. Your argument then shifts to "but I don't believe in the Quran". Fine, I can show you evidences that would lead many if not all to believe this is a book of a higher being, is rationally accurate, and it's signs are visual. Using these proofs logically one COULD assume it is true beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore there is a GOD, by association. That isn't to say this same scenario can't be recreated with other religions, just using mine as an example.
 
I don't think the bigfoot example supports anyone's desire to prove logic is on their side.....next up, the moon landings were faked. Which makes me wonder....are all religions actually successful conspiracy theories we've bought into?
 
BigJoeNobody said:
My point in this is that Logic is more of a path in itself. It dictates that if there is reasoning, there is a possibility. If there is no reasoning, there is no logic. As stated before, a logical conclusion about God(s) existence, is that anything is possible (yes agnostic), which leads to both answers the agnostic says is true are also logical conclusions.
Click to expand...

Logic = if there is reasoning, there is a possibility.
Is that correct? If I say 'if there is one person who doesn't believe in Judaism, Judaism is incorrect' would that be a logical statement? It has a reason, no? But reading from Merriam-Webster there needs to be 'a proper', 'reasonable, 'particular' thinking or understanding.

I don't think we agree what logic is at all, and I'm wondering if it would change your, personal, faith if you rejected the notion that your faith is logical.
 
There is so much you have written that don't align with my understanding. Elsewhere you expressed relief at the fact that DA pointed out that it's fine if we disagree. It is a given for me so I have never felt the need to point it out. But if it if it helps you, there you go. All is fine. Now:
1000s of sightings, witness testimonials are the weakest form of evidence. Considering the hype and the fact that people go out of their way to trick others and lie about about what they see as long standing pranks or simple business. Any sighting won't do, or any at this point.
A dozen or so blood samples, hair samples, depends on the analysis of the samples, just holding some hair in your hand isn't evidence of anything.
Voice recordings, definitely not. a sound recording is a recording of a sound.
Many scientists believe it is entirely possible, no no no, I think most scientist would hold that there is the possibility, that's just how science works. A negative can not be proven. The possibility of something is not the evidence of something.
Is not someone with these evidences well within the parameters of logic to say that Bigfoot exist, well it sort of depends on how picky you are. If I say something is I would need proof (as opposed to evidence here), I can say a lot of things but I personally would like to say as little as possible if I can.
Fine, but don't ask it if you don't want to take a chance on having to understand and possibly at some point join my religion. I don't understand where this is coming from. Do you feel people are afraid of being converted? Has this anything to do with people recently discussing conversion rhetoric?
If you ask for proof, I cannot do so without expressing my belief. It is a given I think.
Fine, I can show you evidences that would lead many if not all to believe this is a book of a higher being, is rationally accurate, and it's signs are visual. There are a lot of question marks in this sentence for me. "...lead many if not all"? That's just...how would you go about determining that. You have to literally try to convert the entire world. I mean literally literally. This is rhetoric at it's...well most obvious perhaps? You say this to appear more convincing and it's entirely unprovable. It's also entirely irrelevant to the sentence. If you feel the evidence is very convincing, or that you've heard that other Muslims found it convincing, say that!
I'll stop commenting on this sentence right there, continuing this rant would just be distracting.
Using these proofs logically one COULD assume it is true beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore there is a GOD, by association.
I agree that it's entirely logical to ASSUME anything based on very little, if one wanted to. But I think the fact that we WANT to assume there is a one true god, that his name is Allah (swt) or that Bigfoot is out there says more about who we are, and that our "logic" is often a justification of something we would hold as true regardless. You wouldn't believe the things I believe in and I'm fine with being irrational.
 
I don't have time to fully flesh out everything, gonna try to hurry this:

: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something

: a particular way of thinking about something

: the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning
Click to expand...
from the Merriam-Webster link above in Joe's post

The problem I see is convoluting every single one of these at the same time in an effort to obfuscate.

A (Joe's usage) proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something, A particular way of thinking about something, A science that studies formal processes used in thinking and reasoning...as if altogether they wrap up tightly and can be used interchangeably. These are distinct definitions... I have already presented the word "right" to make my point, which seems to have gone right over a lot of heads. Every definition of "right" cannot be correct at the same time.

Further: a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge

Again attempting to conflate "all" definitions into one in an effort to gain "rhetorical" advantage. Human logic is *not* the same as machine logic...futher, even *if* it could be shown that human logic and Boolean logic were substantially similar, it does not follow that what Joe is using in his thesis is indeed machine logic. If-Then-Else is not the same as a Greek Syllogism.

A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός syllogismos, "conclusion, inference") is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.

In its earliest form, defined by Aristotle, from the combination of a general statement (the major premise) and a specific statement (the minor premise), a conclusion is deduced. For example, knowing that all men are mortal (major premise) and that Socrates is a man (minor premise), we may validly conclude that Socrates is mortal. Syllogistic arguments are usually represented in a three-line form (without sentence-terminating periods)
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

Back to the point before I forget...Logic is A way of reasoning like the Eiffel Tower is just A tower, or the Mona Lisa is just A pretty picture on the wall.

Throughout I have always used the term "logic" as applying to the discipline, closest to this specific definition provided: "the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning." All of the other definitions are Red Herrings as applied to this discussion.

More later.
 
juantoo3 said:
Fair enough, but I didn't broach the subject of afterlife...so that part is "bait and switch."
Click to expand...

I disagree. Your topic is if everyone believes in something it is logical to believe it is true. I gave my thoughts on why I did not think that was logical - the afterlife was but another example of the same sort of illogical thinking. Still it isn't worth arguing about; I'm perfectly willing to drop my parallel example and concentrate on your topic.

juantoo3 said:
There seems to be plenty enough subtle innuendo to go around for all of the faiths ("my G!d is better than your G!d," "How can your G!d be right when ours clearly is?"). This is also strong circumstantial evidence, the fact that so much of humanity has invested time and resources into the pursuit of phantoms
Click to expand...

Seems to be? Subtle innuendo? 'Strong' circumstantial evidence? Are you reading what you are typing? Circumstantial evidence and innuendo have no place in a logical argument. There is no logical proof that even if all of humanity has this need to connect with a divine, there must be divine. If it were to turn out that all of humanity has been wrong, that is not proof of insanity. It is proof of some biological, chemical or mental imperative that is in our DNA.
 
Aussie Thoughts said:
A Catholic Priest once told me, in matters of faith you might as well throw logic out the window, because human concepts won't help you one little bit.
Click to expand...
As you can see, that's a tough sell around here. I can't tell you how many times I've been accused of anthropotheism. Yet, we are expected to prove the existence of God using human terms and concepts.

Same old argument made countless times on countless threads in countless ways.
 
juantoo3 said:
I have already presented the word "right" to make my point, which seems to have gone right over a lot of heads.
Click to expand...
Woops! I don't know how much this is directed at me. Could you indicate if it was or not so I can re-evaluate what I've read and written. You don't need to quote anything, I just want to know how much effort I need to put into it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top