Why Christianity May Be the Most Logical Religion.

[Skepdick]

Okay.
How about in the case of claiming there's a god?
Based on what?
It's not observable... it's imagined.

You don't have to go that far to observe the limits of human thinking.

The case of people claiming that "there is gravity" is just as ridiculous.
Gravity is not observable - apples falling to the ground is observable.
Gravity is not measurable - mass is measurable.

We say that "gravity exists" but nobody has ever seen it - it's a concept. Imagined.
The concept explains the observation.

Why did the apple fall to the ground? Gravity. (oh that answers it then). But if you look deep enough it really doesn't answer anything.

Formulating logic for assertions about something like that is like a scientist adjusting data to fit/meet his desired result, right?

That is exactly what scientists do. We have data (phenomena) and then we have to explain them.

The "explanation" is some neat Mathematical formula that "fits". Kinda. Not really. Mostly.

Gravity. Energy. Forces. Information. Mass. Time. These are all unobservable concepts. They are the words that exist at the foundation of our thoughts.

[Lacewing]

Okay.
How about in the case of claiming there's a god?
Based on what?
It's not observable... it's imagined.

You don't have to go that far to observe the limits of human thinking.

The case of people claiming that "there is gravity" is just as ridiculous.
Gravity is not observable - apples falling to the ground is observable.
Gravity is not measurable - mass is measurable.

We say that "gravity exists" but nobody has ever seen it - it's a concept. Imagined.

Do you consider such examples in the same realm as theism?

Or are you just trying to come up with clever points? Good job.

I can appreciate that... a little... ...but making assertions about a god and an entire theist belief system that is uniquely individual, and presenting it as if it affects or applies to everyone although it is obviously not observed/shared by everyone, and then formulating "logic" to back up those assertions anyway, seems too falsely contrived to me. That's my logic.

[Skepdick]

Do you consider such examples in the same realm as theism?

Or are you just trying to come up with clever points? Good job.

Epistemically it's the same!

"Gravity" is the story we tell for why things fall.
"God" is the story we tell for why The Universe exists.

They are both equally justified with evidence. Apples fall. Universe exists.

I can appreciate that... a little... ...but making assertions about a god and an entire theist belief system that is uniquely individual, and presenting it as if it affects or applies to everyone although it is obviously not observed/shared by everyone, and then formulating "logic" to back up those assertions anyway, seems too falsely contrived to me. That's my logic.

If I were to construct the term "God" in Mathematics. It would be "the set of all sets".

And if you google that phrase you will end up on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_set

It's the same concept, for deeply metaphysical reasons.

THE Universe (wherever its boundary, if it even has one) - is the limit of epistemology.
Anything beyond that is ... God

[Lacewing]

…

Then EVERYTHING is nonsense. I can accept that.

One type of nonsense does not override all else even when someone presents their "logic" saying it does.

[Eodnhoj7]

Things that are not real to me are illogical to use as a basis for anything. (I already said this.) Things that ARE real to me enable me to witness, measure, see patterns, and make connections -- and that provides a basis for my logic.

So logic is subject to your own experience?

Sure! As I said...

Personally, I simply don't share your kind of logic because I don't agree with all of the theist components you use. That is not real to me. The logic you use may make perfect sense to reality and life as you know it. Just as the logic I see/use makes sense to me.

Is there always one "right" and "true" kind of logic? Apparently not. We are living in different worlds while sharing the same planet. Fascinating, yes? There may be some ideas of logic we agree on... like the effects of gravity, or seasons, or which way the wind blows. But the fact that some people believe in gods, and some people don't, appears to reflect different sources and uses of logic.

And part of my personal experience includes significant involvement in Christianity.

Do you think your logic IS or IS NOT subject to your own experience?

Personal experience has shown personal experience to be limiting. Subjectivity has its limits.

If someone were to tell you all about a world they believed in, of things that seemed obviously and completely illogical and unbelievable TO YOU, and they explained how their logic worked to support that world -- would you truly be reveling in their "logic" or rather noticing the illogical foundations they were working from?

I would follow their logic and how the premises are connected...all assertions are illogical on their own terms as well as forms of logic.

Why would you do this if their claims seemed obviously and completely illogical and unbelievable to you?

Logic as built upon assertions becomes a more complex assertion.

Wouldn't assertions be built on logic? It seems backward to make assertions and THEN find a way to apply logic to them. Are you trying to rationalize your own style of making assertions?

The formula would have to be self referencing, as in the assertions and formula must reference eachother.

That doesn't make either accurate or logical. People can make up all kinds of insane connections and justifications and spin in circles calling it logic, right?

Under Christianity the forms and assertions reference eachother…

Again, doesn't make it accurate or logical.

...through a self maintained loop

What is the significance of this? Just means it is manipulated/controlled, right? And you could add on "self-affirming", which is self-serving and doesn't prove anything.

...which is open to further expansion.

Really? That's not at all the impression theism gives! Rather, it is a closed circle, rigid and already KNOWN. There is nowhere to expand to, and to suggest such a thing is treated as a threat.

[Eodnhoj7]

So logic is subject to your own experience?

Sure! As I said...

Personally, I simply don't share your kind of logic because I don't agree with all of the theist components you use. That is not real to me. The logic you use may make perfect sense to reality and life as you know it. Just as the logic I see/use makes sense to me.

Is there always one "right" and "true" kind of logic? Apparently not. We are living in different worlds while sharing the same planet. Fascinating, yes? There may be some ideas of logic we agree on... like the effects of gravity, or seasons, or which way the wind blows. But the fact that some people believe in gods, and some people don't, appears to reflect different sources and uses of logic.

And part of my personal experience includes significant involvement in Christianity.

Do you think your logic IS or IS NOT subject to your own experience?

Personal experience has shown personal experience to be limiting. Subjectivity has its limits.

I would follow their logic and how the premises are connected...all assertions are illogical on their own terms as well as forms of logic.

Why would you do this if their claims seemed obviously and completely illogical and unbelievable to you?

Actually the synthetic nature of there claims, with synthesis being universal, makes sense both subjectively and objectively.

Logic as built upon assertions becomes a more complex assertion.

Wouldn't assertions be built on logic? It seems backward to make assertions and THEN find a way to apply logic to them. Are you trying to rationalize your own style of making assertions?

Assertions are built on logic as logic is built on assertions, thus logic is a complex assertion. Assertions logically tied together are more complex assertions.

The formula would have to be self referencing, as in the assertions and formula must reference eachother.

That doesn't make either accurate or logical. People can make up all kinds of insane connections and justifications and spin in circles calling it logic, right?

It makes it self referential where the conclusions and premises are connected to eachother.

Under Christianity the forms and assertions reference eachother…

Again, doesn't make it accurate or logical.

Actually it makes it well defined, thus accurate, and logical in the respect the assertions and form of logic are connected at a deeper dimension.

...through a self maintained loop

What is the significance of this?
It gives it a complete form. If a loop occurs then the logical form represents a deeper level of completeness.


Just means it is manipulated/controlled, right? And you could add on "self-affirming", which is self-serving and doesn't prove anything.

Proof is a self referential assertion. Proofs truth value lies in its descriptive nature.

...which is open to further expansion.

Really? That's not at all the impression theism gives! Rather, it is a closed circle, rigid and already KNOWN.
Far from completely known, the definition of God necessitates a continuu, of definition. It is complete only in is cyclicality, but this is open to further expansion


There is nowhere to expand to, and to suggest such a thing is treated as a threat.

False, all loops are open to further expansion with the loop acting as a complete form. Completeness can be subject to expansion yet still be complete without it, form determines logic and this form exists through cyclicality. Take the scientific method for example, it is a cycle but manifests itself under newer and newer applications.

[uwot]

The case of people claiming that "there is gravity" is just as ridiculous.
Gravity is not observable - apples falling to the ground is observable.
Gravity is not measurable - mass is measurable.

Well, two masses are measurable, and the force they exert on each other is measurable. That force, whatever its cause, is gravity.

Gravity.

See above.

Energy.

Basically how much something will fuck you up if it hits you.

Forces.

How much something will move something else.

Information.

Anything that isn't flat.

Mass.

The stuff that makes something else not flat.

Time.

'The time': where we are relative to the Sun and Moon. 'Time': the past, present and future. t: currently the number of transitions between 2 hyperfine states yadda, yadda, caesium atoms, blah, blah, blah.

These are all unobservable concepts. They are the words that exist at the foundation of our thoughts.

The effects are observable.

[Skepdick]

Then EVERYTHING is nonsense. I can accept that.

it's all stories/theories

One type of nonsense does not override all else even when someone presents their "logic" saying it does.

That's why arguing to win arguments is pointless. Me telling you about Newton's equation tells you fuckall. Because the equation doesn't make sense to you.

If you can't extract any meaning/knowledge out of it - if it doesn't change the way you behave in the world, then you've learned nothing.

That's why the language games are pointless. Socratic dialogue is deconstructive, you'll arrive at the conclusion that all that we know is we know nothing. And that's where Philosophy leaves you cold in the water.

And then? I still need to live my life, yo! I got bills to pay and children to feed. What then?!?! Philosophy lacks constructive properties - you need to figure all that constructive stuff out...

[Skepdick]

Anything that isn't flat.

The answer to the question "Is X flat?" is 1 bit of information (by definition). Whether you answer Yes or No.

It means you have a concept for "flatness" in your head.
It means you have confirmatory and disconfirmatory epistemic criteria for "flatness".

The default answer to "Is X flat?" prior to measurement/information is "I don't know".

The effects are observable.

All that is ever observable is the effects. Big Bang? God did it!

The fact is that every scientific concept (energy, mass etc.) suffers from a "God of the gaps" argument. Which, metaphysically is the same phenomenon as Logical incompleteness.

If a better, more complete model comes along which explains what "gravity" explains and more then Gravity goes away. Like God.

ALL mathematical language is either consistent or complete.You can't have both - you need to choose one.

[Eodnhoj7]

Wouldn't assertions be built on logic? It seems backward to make assertions and THEN find a way to apply logic to them. Are you trying to rationalize your own style of making assertions?

It's not backwards. it's how epistemology/science works. The process of rationalizing one's own thinking IS the process of modeling reality.

First we observe the phenomena: apples fall from trees.
Then we speculate a cause: Gravity
Then we write a logical expression which describes what happened: F = G*(m1*m2/r^2)

Okay.
How about in the case of claiming there's a god?
Based on what?
It's not observable... it's imagined.
Formulating logic for assertions about something like that is like a scientist adjusting data to fit/meet his desired result, right?

Creation is observable, as a reflection of all. Imagination, using images from memory and thought, is the approximation of the source.

God, as an actuality, is subject to continual definition and redefinition thus is always simultaneously defined and undefined at the same time. God is not limited to definition, neither limited by undefinition.

Logic is the manifestation of God, as logic is definitive thus creative by nature. Creation is definition. To say logic is applied to fit the assertion of God, is to set an assertion and applying logic to meet that assertion thus a contradiction in premise occurs where the premise is self negated by it's own standard.

[Eodnhoj7]

Then EVERYTHING is nonsense. I can accept that.

it's all stories/theories

One type of nonsense does not override all else even when someone presents their "logic" saying it does.

That's why arguing to win arguments is pointless. Me telling you about Newton's equation tells you fuckall. Because the equation doesn't make sense to you.

If you can't extract any meaning/knowledge out of it - if it doesn't change the way you behave in the world, then you've learned nothing.

That's why the language games are pointless. Socratic dialogue is deconstructive, you'll arrive at the conclusion that all that we know is we know nothing. And that's where Philosophy leaves you cold in the water.

And then? I still need to live my life, yo! I got bills to pay and children to feed. What then?!?! Philosophy lacks constructive properties - you need to figure all that constructive stuff out...

Philosophy constructs definition of phenomenon, with all being occurs through definition. To argue philosophy is only deconstructive is one third of the argument. The other two thirds is construction and synthetic structure.

[Skepdick]

Logic is the manifestation of God, as logic is definitive thus creative by nature. Creation is definition. To say logic is applied to fit the assertion of God, is to set an assertion and applying logic to meet that assertion thus a contradiction in premise occurs where the premise is self negated by it's own standard.

Per Martin-Löf said something very similar.

[Skepdick]

Philosophy constructs definition of phenomenon, with all being occurs through definition. To argue philosophy is only deconstructive is one third of the argument. The other two thirds is construction and synthetic structure.

And what would you construct/synthesise without first-hand empiricism of the phenomena you speak of?

Nothing. You will regurgitate other people's language.

Having a private language (that you can translate to and from) is vital for understanding/knowledge-synthesis.

[Lacewing]

Do you think your logic IS or IS NOT subject to your own experience?

Personal experience has shown personal experience to be limiting. Subjectivity has its limits.

So, is that a "no"? Where do you get your logic? Is it bigger than or from beyond yourself?

Why would you do this if their claims seemed obviously and completely illogical and unbelievable to you?

Actually the synthetic nature of there claims, with synthesis being universal, makes sense both subjectively and objectively.

So, does this mean you believe anything?

Everything?

Assertions are built on logic as logic is built on assertions, thus logic is a complex assertion. Assertions logically tied together are more complex assertions.

So everything is true?

That doesn't make either accurate or logical. People can make up all kinds of insane connections and justifications and spin in circles calling it logic, right?

It makes it self referential where the conclusions and premises are connected to eachother.

So, as long as a person can create their own loop, they are functioning sanely?

Actually it makes it well defined, thus accurate, and logical in the respect the assertions and form of logic are connected at a deeper dimension.

A really detailed made-up story is valid because the person really believes it?

What is the significance of this?

It gives it a complete form. If a loop occurs then the logical form represents a deeper level of completeness.

So, the more complete the insanity is, the better?

Proof is a self referential assertion. Proofs truth value lies in its descriptive nature.

The better the description, the greater the proof?

Really? That's not at all the impression theism gives! Rather, it is a closed circle, rigid and already KNOWN.

Far from completely known, the definition of God necessitates a continuu, of definition. It is complete only in is cyclicality, but this is open to further expansion

The only typical reason that theists seem open to expansion is when their congregation is shrinking and they need more money -- so they have to appeal to more people. If what you say is true, why don't the theist posters on this forum acknowledge that? Are they unaware of a greater truth that you know?

...all loops are open to further expansion with the loop acting as a complete form.

What facilitates this expansion when the human ego is at stake?

[Eodnhoj7]

Philosophy constructs definition of phenomenon, with all being occurs through definition. To argue philosophy is only deconstructive is one third of the argument. The other two thirds is construction and synthetic structure.

And what would you construct/synthesise without first-hand empiricism of the phenomena you speak of?

[/color]

Nothing. You will regurgitate other people's language.



Having a private language (that you can translate to and from) is vital for understanding/knowledge-synthesis.

A private language still requires common forms. I may use the imagination to form the symbol of a deer with trumpets for antlers and thus symbol may represent an assertive and boisterous form of masculinity, yet the symbols are grounded in objectively observed forms.

A private language cannot be seperated completely from an objective language and vice versa.
The private/public dichotomy always requires the inversion of one into another and as such both are always connected by some median symbol.