Interfaith discussions

[BigJoeNobody]

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?

Within the construct of the definition that I have been trying to discuss, it is a logical idea. According to many Atheists, religion was designed to control people. (I would agree to a point, but not in the negative and humanist style they use). Again my point in the Bigfoot example isn't that it does/doesn't exist, but rather the possibility is there for it to exist.

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 wasn't wanting to break up posts, but this one I feel the need. I can't even wrap my head around how you came to the conclusion that I would say that. The closest thing I can change it around to make a logical standpoint "If one person believes Judaism and has some proof of it's correctness, then Judaism is a logical option". your example has no reasoning. It just says 1 person doesn't believe so it is incorrect. The 2 are not connected in any way.

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.

maybe, but to do so, you would have to eliminate the evidence, which obviously cannot be talked about here as somehow talking of evidences and beliefs is not interfaith (something I struggle to understand).

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.

The bigfoot example, wasn't meant to be argued. "many scientists believe it is entirely possible" is not evidence, but rather a statement of which you confirmed DIRECTLY my point. Proof as you put it is nothing more than accepted evidence. I agree with your contentions on each type of evidence. If you really want to debate bigfoot we can start a thread on it as I find it fascinating from both sides.

People have expressed time and time again they do not want me to discuss certain topics because they feel I am trying to say my religion is right and theirs is wrong. Is there any other logical explanation as to why we cannot discuss those topics?

Islam is one of if not the FASTEST growing religion in the US/Europe/ even world. I think it is a fair assessment that there is a reason many are turning to it, and the biggest thing most Dawah (Islamic Evangelics) groups talk about are proofs. But honestly this has nothing to do with what I was trying to say with that sentence. I will attempt to be more clear. IMO (I hope we have established this is opinion from the other thread) I could tell you evidences that cannot be assessed (trying to get away from the word proven) inconsistent with modern science's conclusions from a book when these things might have been discussed, but was still highly debated. These evidences lead to a logical conclusion. That Islam is ONE of the Possibilities as it cannot be proven false (which proving something is false is entirely possible if the statement/belief has things they say about observable things that is not consistent with reality). To go back to your previous post, If the one person who doesn't believe presented evidence that said it was incorrect then his assessment would be a logical option, but may be proven false by a believer explaining it to him.

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.

Propositions. There is 1 God (Assumed based on several factors)
Mouhammed was a prophet (assumed based on the Quran)
Quran is an Omnipotent's word (asserted by proofs found within)
There is nothing to disprove it's accuracy (assumed based on experience)
Conclusion. Islam is correct
By your definition Islam being the correct / a correct religion is a perfectly logical conclusion.

If I have to use examples of magical unicorns here I will

Now I would like to take a second to explain why I feel this necessary. In a thread called "On what are your beliefs based" I said logic is one of them. I was then told multiple times logic doesn't fit into religion. Which is a fallacy. IF noone used logic to base their beliefs, what then would lead one to believe. Essentially ALL religions are based on logic. Whether they are Accurate, disprovable, etc, doesn't discount their logic to their believers, which might have already explored the rejections and found them to be non-issues based on other things.

I have more to say, but out of time... to be continued...

 

[juantoo3]

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.

I think you may be reading into what I wrote, a great deal more than I actually said. I stated that humans since antiquity have been trying to commune with or otherwise connect with the Divine. I really didn't mean any more than that with the original statement.

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.

Very good! While I do believe what I wrote, and feel the way I do, I agree it is not logical. I have no logical way to support that contention.

 

[juantoo3]

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.

Wasn't so much you, although I did see you begin to wander off into the same direction.

That is why the definitions of terms are so very important. Rhetorically it is easy to flit back and forth between definitions of a term in order to confuse an issue. Worst case scenario it ends up with talking past each other and a *whole lot* of cognitive dissonance.

 

[juantoo3]

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.

Not from me. In fact, that is the underlying basis of everything so far in this thread...G!d cannot be proven to exist, and disproving G!d's existence is impossible...according to Logic.

People argue from their gut all the time....that is *not* Logic.

 

[juantoo3]

I don't think the bigfoot example supports anyone's desire to prove logic is on their side

I can't speak for Joe, but I do know his argument that I cannot prove G!d doesn't exist therefore I should believe He does, is the same as saying he should believe invisible pink unicorns exist because he cannot prove they do not exist.

That is the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Joe,
Things are getting really muddled together. I started to write something and realised it would take me all night and probably wouldn't get us anywhere in the end. Forget my previous post, it seemed to confuse the situation. I'll try again.

It seems like you are sort of saying that if a person FEEL there is a reason to believe something it is logical to do so?

What does reasons are seem to be irrelevant. No one else needs to accept those reasons for them to be logical.

How close is this? And please try to keep it on point, we both try to say way to much in our posts.

 

[juantoo3]

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

For which I will let others speak, although I don't recall ever saying anything about "absolute" truth, merely asking what you meant by "truth" because it seemed (as so much in your writing) to be a moving target. I am of the opinion that so-called logic with deliberate incorrectness is not logic at all.

Thomas Hofweber writes in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that logic "does not, however, cover good reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the theory of rationality. Rather it deals with inferences whose validity can be traced back to the formal features of the representations that are involved in that inference, be they linguistic, mental, or other representations".
-also-
the system's rules of proof never allow a false inference from true premises. A logical system has the property of soundness when the logical system has the property of validity and uses only premises that prove true.

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

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.

Again, machine logic is not human logic, Boolean logic is not a syllogism.

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):

All men are mortal

Socrates is a man

Therefore, Socrates is mortal

-ibid

Further, even if one allows sufficient similarity, what you have written in and around this comment do not hold to this manner of reasoning (syllogism *or* Boolean), so the distinction is moot and irrelevant, and wholly unrelated to the thesis under discussion.

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.

Again, you may say it is logic, it is not logic. What I see here is Schroedinger's cat...half alive and half dead. Would you agree, G!d either exists or doesn't exist? How can He both exist and not-exist at the same moment???

In conclusion, the definition of logic says that a logical statement only requires reasoning which means it contains evidences for such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Extensive reference that seems in some ways to support some of what you are saying, but not in the way you are saying *or using* it. Please clarify.

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.

OK, here you are clearly off the map regarding Logic. I understand G!d better than perhaps you give me credit. I just know better than to try to use the discipline of Logic in some attempt to gain scientific credibility.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

I can't speak for Joe, but I do know his argument that I cannot prove G!d doesn't exist therefore I should believe He does, is the same as saying he should believe invisible pink unicorns exist because he cannot prove they do not exist.

The difference is, millions and millions of people do not worship 'Invisible Pink Unicorns' and the belief in their existence in one form or the other can not be found in nearly every culture throughout history.

 

[juantoo3]

Islam is one of if not the FASTEST growing religion in the US/Europe/ even world.

I think this is overstated. "(M)odest gains" compared to "FASTEST growing"...I mean, really, how is that not like a used car salesman?

The U.S. remains an overwhelmingly Christian country. That hasn’t changed, but a new survey shows a significant drop in the number of Americans who identify as Christian.

The survey was done by the Pew Research Center. It showed that, in 2007, 78 percent of Americans identified as Christian. By last year, the percentage had dropped to under 71 percent. Those years have seen a dramatic rise in the number of Americans who say they are religiously unaffiliated, from 16 to nearly 23 percent.

The largest drop was in mainline Protestant denominations, but the number of Catholics also fell. Several non-Christian religions, Islam and Hinduism, saw modest gains.

emphasis mine, -jt3
source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/america-less-religious-today-just-millennials/

BTW, the fastest growing segment are those who are distancing themselves from *any* religion.

Propositions. There is 1 God (Assumed based on several factors)
Mouhammed was a prophet (assumed based on the Quran)
Quran is an Omnipotent's word (asserted by proofs found within)
There is nothing to disprove it's accuracy (assumed based on experience)
Conclusion. Islam is correct
By your definition Islam being the correct / a correct religion is a perfectly logical conclusion.

Key words: Assumed, Asserted...by those alone we already know this is not traditional Greek Logic. Is it a form of reasoning? I can grant you that, yes. It is not Logic.

If I have to use examples of magical unicorns here I will

The answer wouldn't change. If you wish to believe in something simply because someone tells you that you can't prove it doesn't exist, you are welcome to do so. That isn't Logic.

Now I would like to take a second to explain why I feel this necessary. In a thread called "On what are your beliefs based" I said logic is one of them. I was then told multiple times logic doesn't fit into religion. Which is a fallacy. IF noone used logic to base their beliefs, what then would lead one to believe. Essentially ALL religions are based on logic. Whether they are Accurate, disprovable, etc, doesn't discount their logic to their believers, which might have already explored the rejections and found them to be non-issues based on other things.

I believe I understand what you are saying. I agree we rationalize our faiths to ourselves, we justify our faiths to ourselves...but it isn't Logic that is being used, no matter what we tell ourselves it is or what name we use for it.

 

[juantoo3]

The difference is, millions and millions of people do not worship 'Invisible Pink Unicorns' and the belief in their existence in one form or the other can not be found in nearly every culture throughout history.

If everyone were jumping off a bridge, would you jump too? Because it is the popular thing to do, does it make it a valid thing? Smoking cigarettes was the popular thing to do not so long ago...Billions of people did it. So does that make smoking cigarettes a good thing to do?

 

[BigJoeNobody]

For which I will let others speak, although I don't recall ever saying anything about "absolute" truth, merely asking what you meant by "truth" because it seemed (as so much in your writing) to be a moving target. I am of the opinion that so-called logic with deliberate incorrectness is not logic at all.

Why is logic for you always tied to truth (reality, actuality, absolute, whatever you want to call it). Every definition of every word in the various definitions of the word logic allows for reasonable assumptions. Without that you cannot prove anything. You cannot Prove yes/no about god without a gap of covering doubt with other evidences, and I agree. At some point you have to accept some assumptions based on what evidence there is. Meaning there is LOGICALLY multiple possibilities, or another way of saying the phrase is commonly "logical conclusions". I heard a theory recently that the whole universe was nothing more than a digital projection and our minds are just creating all around us (sounds like someone was smoking a bit too much green stuff watching the Matrix). But think about it. Can you reasonably make this argument? I would say one can make a logical claim, that the world we see is a digital projection. Simply with saying, "what do we actually sense, all of our senses are caused by electrons moving in our brain. That signal is digital. The realities of each individual person could be networked together and an algorithm could be created to establish a common perception of reality. Of course this is dependent on an assumption that there is a controller/creator as well." This is very much a valid logical explanation of reality, but I would venture a guess that it is not true. The fact that it cannot be PROVEN false nor any of its reasoning, means that it will maintain a logical explanation of all that is around us (in our minds in this case).

I realize I use a lot of examples as tools for understanding. This is the first place I do so and people instantly start questioning what I mean. I prefer to use common language, whereas juan prefers technical terms (and from what I can see rejects the common definitions). For a while we have been stuck on this what is logic. We agree it is a system, and that it involves evidence. Past that I think you want there to be this grandeur form and all evidence must be completely provable, etc. I ride the notion that some reasonable assumptions can be made. And I think this comes down to what we are trying to present. You want people to read your posts and be amazed at the complexity. I'd rather talk on a level anyone can understand. as best I have time atm to read through the Wiki entry you sent, I am probably in a more informal model of logic.

And once again I am out of time...

 

[juantoo3]

Why is logic for you always tied to truth (reality, actuality, absolute, whatever you want to call it).

If we cannot speak truthfully between us, then I have no reason to continue. Any reasoning method that does not have truth as reality as the core basis to build from in pursuing questions of the Divine, is none I wish to participate in.

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

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.

No worries. It's always been like that. The faithful don't need any proof and the faithless won't accept any proof.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

If everyone were jumping off a bridge, would you jump too? Because it is the popular thing to do, does it make it a valid thing? Smoking cigarettes was the popular thing to do not so long ago...Billions of people did it. So does that make smoking cigarettes a good thing to do?

Now that's even further off the mark than the pink unicorn analogy. I know of no one who worships bridges or cigarettes and I doubt anyone is questioning the existence of either. I think I know what you're trying to say, but it's not the same thing.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

If we cannot speak truthfully between us, then I have no reason to continue. Any reasoning method that does not have truth as reality as the core basis to build from in pursuing questions of the Divine, is none I wish to participate in.

I think you are reading what I'm writing, yet not trying to understand. A logical possibility or logical option doesn't necessitate the need to be absolutely the only outcome possible. In other words the truth isn't what the discussion is reaching, but rather what options there are for truth.

I was going to add another example, but the more I think of it. you aren't understanding even the most basic of my explanations, So I can only conclude that either A: I am terrible at explaining my point, or B: You have no interest in understanding what I wrote and are only interested in nitpicking things in the most obscure manner in an attempt to confuse and befuddle to prove your case. I won't presuppose you of ill-will so I'll leave it at option A.

I will try to say this plainly. A logical explanation, nor a logical Option, nor a logical possibility is not containing a requirement to be proof positive. Assumptions are an integral part of any conclusion, be it logical or not. Assumptions are not always correct, but are deemed to be so with evidence pointing in a single way, without having evidence proving to the contrary.

BTW... according to several sources wiki uses, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion I was correct on world views... but http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/ says I was wrong about US (unless we limit it to faith adherents), but there are pretty large points of contention I have with the latter, I am perfectly willing to admit, I was wrong in the way I stated it.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

maybe, but to do so, you would have to eliminate the evidence, which obviously cannot be talked about here as somehow talking of evidences and beliefs is not interfaith (something I struggle to understand).

It is not that evidence cannot be talked about. The issue I believe for most of us, but I don't really know that, so I will say that for me the issue with your evidence is not that I disagree with your evidence - rather that I don't believe your perception of what makes up evidence is accurate. It is my view that your facts are facts only because you have decided they are. Someone else could look at your facts and say they are not facts at all, but assumptions.

It is the same with your version of logic. What you state is logic is not logic as I understand the term. Same bottom line. It's not your specific evidence and logic I have a problem with. It is your definition of evidence and logic that I have a problem with.

Am I saying this in a way where you understand the difference between the two?

 

[juantoo3]

I think you are reading what I'm writing, yet not trying to understand. A logical possibility or logical option doesn't necessitate the need to be absolutely the only outcome possible. In other words the truth isn't what the discussion is reaching, but rather what options there are for truth.

I was going to add another example, but the more I think of it. you aren't understanding even the most basic of my explanations, So I can only conclude that either A: I am terrible at explaining my point, or B: You have no interest in understanding what I wrote and are only interested in nitpicking things in the most obscure manner in an attempt to confuse and befuddle to prove your case. I won't presuppose you of ill-will so I'll leave it at option A.

I will try to say this plainly. A logical explanation, nor a logical Option, nor a logical possibility is not containing a requirement to be proof positive. Assumptions are an integral part of any conclusion, be it logical or not. Assumptions are not always correct, but are deemed to be so with evidence pointing in a single way, without having evidence proving to the contrary.

I am trying very hard to understand, but I can't help but believe at this point that your comprehension and my comprehension are so different as to make things nearly impossible.

I tried to lay some groundwork...first, whatever passes for logic is in the context of interfaith discussions. I would think that a given, being that is the name of the thread and the forum we are at. Second, if we cannot be truthful with each other regarding interfaith matters on an interfaith forum...what is the point of even discussing?

Will every question end with factual truth? No, and I agree it would be unreasonable to expect as much...with the caveat that factual truth is the target and goal to strive for.

Logically, one cannot get to "truth" by adding "false." False is not an odd number, just add a few falsities together and presto!, a truth! It doesn't work that way. Assumed truths *might* prove false in the end...over that we have no control, but that is a purpose of logical examination. Likewise, a neutral "I don't know" may be the most likely logical answer. (third base!)

While considering what to reply, I came to a realization. I will state it initially as a false dichotomy, then flesh it out and explain.

People come to this site for two reasons. Either they come to thump their chest and boast about how their beliefs are the best and everyone else can go to hell, or they come here because they see the world as a dysfunctional family and want to try to figure out ways to reduce that dysfunction.

I mentioned that is a false dichotomy, the way I see it, it isn't either/or, it is a spectrum. Even those that come here to put a little "fun" in dysfunction, thump their chests a little. The chest thumpers though, sometimes it is really hard to tell how much they even concern themselves with trying to reduce the dysfunction. That is a question we all have to ask ourselves about why we are here, what our primary focus is....to thump our chests?, or to see how to reduce the dysfunction?

If the goal is simply to win arguments, in an interfaith context...what's the point? Proselyzation? Conversion? Last I was here, that was *strongly* discouraged, so unless things have changed and I don't know about it, I don't see that happening...certainly not from me. (To my way of thinking it would be exchanging one tool of torture for another) Rest assured, I have no intentions of converting anybody.

Logic, which is the subject at hand in an interfaith setting with truth as a foundation, is a tool for self examination...nothing more. I think you will find that logic isn't very convincing, and tends to be quite boring...rhetoric is far more fun to play with, {no rules}.

BTW... according to several sources wiki uses, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion I was correct on world views... but http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/ says I was wrong about US (unless we limit it to faith adherents), but there are pretty large points of contention I have with the latter, I am perfectly willing to admit, I was wrong in the way I stated it.

No probs.

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

I know of no one who worships bridges or cigarettes and I doubt anyone is questioning the existence of either.

Why surly you've heard of the Mighty Viaduct who gave his only begotten filter-tip so that we might enjoy known carcinogens without the harsh taste!

 

[juantoo3]

Now that's even further off the mark than the pink unicorn analogy. I know of no one who worships bridges or cigarettes and I doubt anyone is questioning the existence of either. I think I know what you're trying to say, but it's not the same thing.

OK, since you are not understanding this one, let Wil answer for me:

... just because something has been going on for a hundred thousand years.... it clearly does not make it right.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

I am trying very hard to understand, but I can't help but believe at this point that your comprehension and my comprehension are so different as to make things nearly impossible.

I tried to lay some groundwork...first, whatever passes for logic is in the context of interfaith discussions. I would think that a given, being that is the name of the thread and the forum we are at. Second, if we cannot be truthful with each other regarding interfaith matters on an interfaith forum...what is the point of even discussing?

Will every question end with factual truth? No, and I agree it would be unreasonable to expect as much...with the caveat that factual truth is the target and goal to strive for.

Logically, one cannot get to "truth" by adding "false." False is not an odd number, just add a few falsities together and presto!, a truth! It doesn't work that way. Assumed truths *might* prove false in the end...over that we have no control, but that is a purpose of logical examination. Likewise, a neutral "I don't know" may be the most likely logical answer. (third base!)

While considering what to reply, I came to a realization. I will state it initially as a false dichotomy, then flesh it out and explain.

People come to this site for two reasons. Either they come to thump their chest and boast about how their beliefs are the best and everyone else can go to hell, or they come here because they see the world as a dysfunctional family and want to try to figure out ways to reduce that dysfunction.

I mentioned that is a false dichotomy, the way I see it, it isn't either/or, it is a spectrum. Even those that come here to put a little "fun" in dysfunction, thump their chests a little. The chest thumpers though, sometimes it is really hard to tell how much they even concern themselves with trying to reduce the dysfunction. That is a question we all have to ask ourselves about why we are here....to thump our chests, or to see how to reduce the dysfunction.

If the goal is simply to win arguments, in an interfaith context...what's the point? Proselyzation? Conversion? Last I was here, that was *strongly* discouraged, so unless things have changed and I don't know about it, I don't see that happening...certainly not from me. (To my way of thinking it would be exchanging one tool of torture for another) Rest assured, I have no intentions of converting anybody.

Logic, which is the subject at hand in an interfaith setting with truth as a foundation, is a tool for self examination...nothing more. I think you will find that logic isn't very convincing, and tends to be quite boring...rhetoric is far more fun to play with, {no rules}.


No probs.

I don't think we are as far apart as you think. I believe it largely comes from language differences. I like Layman's terms, you like formal speech.

I wouldn't advocate adding false statements to prove the point, and I hope that isn't what you gathered. I would say assumptions are admissible however given no evidence exists to absolutely contradict it. Such as the grand assumption for most IF discussions, There is a God. It can't be absolutely proven, but for most, it can be proven feasible, and for many of them probable. It cannot however be absolutely proven false. (as we have discussed. The other side of the evidence coin is who accepts what as evidence. Such as the analysis of the bigfoot theory I posted. If I say there are hair samples, one could legitimately ask "but what does that prove, you have hair, from what". But if further analysis shows that its makeup is genetically part human, and part ape, but no known species of ape, one could assume it is very possible this is bigfoot. Or you go further and one can reject its assumption because the DNA is not capable of being tied to what we call bigfoot without having a bigfoot to compare it to. However is it still illogical to believe that bigfoot exists?

Sorry I got off on example again. I hope though it helps show my point of assumptions, and why I don't find Logic as a system to absolute truth, but rather a system of options which can be analyzed and rejected or approved as possibility.