The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Elminster_Amaur]

How 'bout I give one of these a try, 'eh?

Existance exists. (Try to disprove THAT one)
Because of the definition of existance, it is unable to NOT exist.
Therefore, there was neither a beginning or will there be an ending to existance.

[Sithdarth]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Sheesh, this is getting out of hand. There's really nothing to argue about... logical derivations are only as valid as the assumptions you make. A theistic argument might go along the lines of, "There can be no infinite causal chains, therefore the universe must have a first cause," and it would be logical, but you could still argue against the postulated premise that there can be no infinite causal chains.

Sadly untrue. Once again, logic can only be constructed off premises that are not assumptions. IE. if you can't point to actual physical objective proof of your premises then it is not logic. At least not deductive logic.

Your conclusion can lack direct physical proof because you provide that via your premises. So if you wanted to use a logical statement with "There can be no infinite causal chains" you would first have to prove with factual physically provable premises that there can in fact be no infinite causal chains. Then from there you can formulate on top of it.

Edit:

Originally Posted by EA

How 'bout I give one of these a try, 'eh?

Existance exists. (Try to disprove THAT one)
Because of the definition of existance, it is unable to NOT exist.
Therefore, there was neither a beginning or will there be an ending to existance.

Your second statements needs to be proved in an undisputable way before that is a statement of logic.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Your second statements needs to be proved in an undisputable way before that is a statement of logic.

But Sith, how can one prove that existance, which we are wholy contained within, can not end? How about I use another logical statement to prove it?

IF everything that exists is contained in existance, (You won't argue with that, right? I'm not saying Universe, I'm saying existance)
AND matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system, (I assume you have no problem with this statement)
THEN existence must always exist.

Edit: By "everything" I mean all matter and energy in and outside all Universes.

[Krylo]

There's actually a logical fallacy called 'false premises' which I was going to bring up if Swordchucks decided to reply to me.

What it states is basically this--if your logic is built off of false premises then it is logically unsound.

In other words--what Funka just said is true. Logic requires sound and verifiable premises in order to actually be called logic.

Example:

All cows are ungulates.
All ungulates have horns.
All horned animals are dangerous.--False premise. This is no longer logic.
All dangerous animals should be killed.--Another false premise (as killing all dangerous animals would result in our death due to a fucked up ecosystem). This has been driven even further into illogic.
Conclusion: All cows should be killed.


Killing an innocent person is murder.--This is a hasty generalization. Killing an innocent person may be manslaughter, criminal negligience, or, as fifth said, a thousand other things.
Murder is wrong.
Fetuses are innocent people.--Contested Premise. You can't use, in a logical arguement, a statement which has not been proven. So, again, there are two forays into illogic in this.
Abortion is killing fetuses.
Conclusion: Abortion is wrong.

[Sithdarth]

Originally Posted by Elmin

AND matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system, (I assume you have no problem with this statement)

Unfortunately, Hawking's tells us that in under the Planck time matter can be created and destroyed. He went from there to Hawking's Radiation. All really cool stuff.

Oh and I append my last statement logical premises can be either indisputably true or indisputably false to form a logical statement. The key is that there can be no argument over if the statement is true or if it is false.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Sadly untrue. Once again, logic can only be constructed off premises that are not assumptions.

What? No. At the core of logic, there must be some things that you can assume, or else you have nothing to derive from. Example: our observations are consistent with reality. This is an assumption. From this we conclude things like if we see something, we know it must exist. Which assumptions one's logic is built up from is something to be argued over and debated.

[Sithdarth]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

What? No. At the core of logic, there must be some things that you can assume, or else you have nothing to derive from. Example: our observations are consistent with reality. This is an assumption. From this we conclude things like if we see something, we know it must exist. Which assumptions one's logic is built up from is something to be argued over and debated.

You're diving into nihilism there which isn't exactly a paragon of logic. An assumption ceases to be an assumption and becomes fact when anyone can confirm it for themselves. Basically objective facts are the only thing a logical deductive argument can contain until your conclusion.

Also, I retract my previous statement as pretty much any objectively false statement you want to make can be reworded as an objectively true statement and then used as a premise.

Edit: Example:
The predominate wavelength of light that is scattered across the sky during noon is around 475 nm
People often describe light of wavelength about 475 nm as blue
Light scattered across the sky appears to come from everywhere in the sky
Thus the sky looks blue

All objective indisputable facts. Cept the conclusion.

[ZAKtheGeek]

You're diving into nihilism there which isn't exactly a paragon of logic.

Well, I'm sorry to get so abstract, but we are talking about the roots of logic derivation here.

n assumption ceases to be an assumption and becomes fact when anyone can confirm it for themselves. Basically objective facts are the only thing a logical deductive argument can contain until your conclusion.

Confirm how? With their senses? How do we know that sensory information is accurate? And what exactly is a "fact," anyway?

So you see, this example still needs to be in more basic terms before it's compatible with what I'm saying.

[Fifthfiend]

I did an undergrad double major in biology and philosophy. I did several courses in logic, and got over 95% in every single one of them.

Hey, I passed five years of spanish courses, but yo no habla el espanol for shit.

Shit, you got me.

Ha ha! Zing!

[Sithdarth]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Confirm how? With their senses? How do we know that sensory information is accurate? And what exactly is a "fact," anyway?

So you see, this example still needs to be in more basic terms before it's compatible with what I'm saying.

That is nearly text book nihilism and nihilism is frankly stupid. Additionally, you can construct some sort of instrument that will measure an objective quantity and always come up with the same answer. That is the same answer no matter who uses the device, who made the device, or where they use the device. That is objective fact.

Also, check my above edit.