Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:Then you don't understand Logic.

Possible but unlikely, but it seems to be true that you do not understand God. Therefore a God that is beyond logic is beyond your understanding.

Arising_uk wrote: Then you don't understand Logic. As Logic exists because there is Existence, i.e. things or states of affairs. Now if you think your 'God' is not a thing or state of affair then fair enough but then your 'God' does not exist.

Fair enough, if you want to believe in non-existent things that is your affair.

Are you saying "non-existent" as in having no physical manifestation? but allowing for a spiritual presence?

thedoc wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:Then you don't understand Logic.

Possible but unlikely, but it seems to be true that you do not understand God. Therefore a God that is beyond logic is beyond your understanding.

I'm gonna have to chime in here in support of Arising. To suggest that something can exist without logic for me is dead wrong.

The main reason i post on this forum is to bounce ideas off of 'other minds' regarding my deductions pertaining to the nature of God. If you believe there is no logic to God, then there is no point philosophising about it.

attofishpi wrote:To suggest that something can exist without logic for me is dead wrong.

I do not see what logic has to do with existence.

Do you really mean logic, meaning something like 'the form of a valid argument'? Or are you using that word to mean something else?

Londoner wrote:

attofishpi wrote:To suggest that something can exist without logic for me is dead wrong.

I do not see what logic has to do with existence.

Do you really mean logic, meaning something like 'the form of a valid argument'? Or are you using that word to mean something else?

Logic is a human construct that deals only with the correct structure of an argument, it just does not apply to anything else.

BTW, Star Trek logic was based on whatever the script writers wanted for a story line.

thedoc wrote:Logic is a human construct that deals only with the correct structure of an argument, it just does not apply to anything else.

Correct.

The quality of the content in the logical syllogism is a different question from the validity of the syllogism itself.

Socrates is a mortal.
All mortals are airplanes.
Therefore, Socrates is an airplane.

...is a valid, logical syllogism. It just doesn't happen to be true, because the second premise isn't true. The logic is flawless there: only the content is flawed, because it's just not true.

But that tells us something about using logic on questions about God. It tells us that it works: but only if one is using truthful premises first. The problem is that most of us do not know what the relevant, truthful premises would be. So we can do the logic, but we can't seem to get the right conclusions anyway.

Another way to say this is to say that using logic is a necessary-but-not-sufficient condition to deducing things about God.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Socrates is a mortal.
All mortals are airplanes.
Therefore, Socrates is an airplane.

Socrates has quite a small willy.
Plato has a significantly bigger willy.
Therefore, Socrates avoids feeling resentful towards Plato by adopting a philosophical attitude towards the situation.

This tells us that even though, judging by ancient Greek art small willys were in vogue at the time, people still preferred to have a big one, themselves.

"Socrates himself will be particularly missed..."

Immanuel Can wrote:"Socrates himself will be particularly missed..."

Plato will probably be missed more.

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:"Socrates himself will be particularly missed..."

Plato will probably be missed more.

"Plato, they say, used to stick it away...
Half a pint of whiskey every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a beggar for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram..."

Immanuel Can wrote: "Plato, they say, used to stick it away...
Half a pint of whiskey every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a beggar for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WRFJwGsbY

That was half a case of whiskey every day. Half as pint wasn't much at all, I can do that without trying hard.

A part of a dram was the traditional British Navy Rum ration that was discontinued in 1970.

thedoc wrote:That was half a case of whiskey every day.

But see...

http://www.chordie.com/chord.pere/getso ... ong.chopro

I've run into that before. The Pythons did different versions of the same skits, using slightly different wording each time.

To be expected, I suppose, when you perform a sketch hundreds of times.

Gorn.

Londoner wrote:

attofishpi wrote:To suggest that something can exist without logic for me is dead wrong.

I do not see what logic has to do with existence.

Do you really mean logic, meaning something like 'the form of a valid argument'? Or are you using that word to mean something else?

How about this?
To suggest something can exist contrary to being subject to the application of human logic for me is dead wrong.

attofishpi wrote: How about this?
To suggest something can exist contrary to being subject to the application of human logic for me is dead wrong.

Suppose I asked where logic comes from? A question about the nature of logic would not be subject to the application of logic, yet it seems legitimate.

I think the same thing arises in lots of areas; suppose we were discussing the conditions of possible experience in Kant, or the nature of human psychology. We cannot get outside those boxes and observe, i.e. describe human psychology as if we were not subject to it ourselves, but we can be philosophically aware that they are boxes.

Besides, there is the awkward fact that logic and all the other ways we understand the world don't seem to fit together. For example, we cannot quite reconcile logic and maths. So, rather than having one absolute certainty we can apply to everything, we are in the unsatisfactory position of having a selection of somewhat contradictory certainties!

Londoner wrote:Suppose I asked where logic comes from?

That is like asking where the laws of mathematics come from. The answer is, "from reality."

Besides, there is the awkward fact that logic and all the other ways we understand the world don't seem to fit together. For example, we cannot quite reconcile logic and maths.

I'm unfamiliar with this argument, the one that shows (presumably using logic) that mathematics does not work in a logical way.

Can you show that it is so?