Do theists believe in logic?

[Polaris]

Do you speak of mutually exclusive terminology and contradictory definitions, or only of mutually exclusive possibilities within the physical universe?

I suppose I would speak first and foremost of "pure logical," purely formal, forms of contradiction, "conceptual" contradicton. I'm inclined to think of it as more fundamental than that of mutually exclusive possibilities in the physical universe (or at least, equally fundamental to those in the physical universe (presuming here that the distinction between "formal" and "physical" is itself an ultimately legitimate one...))

 

[JBeukema]

I think I like this polaris character :3

 

[Polaris]

Say, JBeukema, Thanks for that.

 

[We Are They]

I think I feel a gay marriage about to happen.

 

[garyd]

Too bad human logic is not the be all and end all. Which goes back to my original point. The ability of human logic to ascertain the correct solution to a given problem is always constrained by the avaiability of information concerning the solution sought. The less information you have available the less likely you are to derive a correct solution to a problem.

Put it this way a being with access to all availble information can quite possibly engage in action that seem quite illogical to those who are not possessed of all the said information and yet still be acting completely logically.

 

[Polaris]

Too bad human logic is not the be all and end all. Which goes back to my original point. The ability of human logic to ascertain the correct solution to a given problem is always constrained by the avaiability of information concerning the solution sought. The less information you have available the less likely you are to derive a correct solution to a problem.

Put it this way a being with access to all availble information can quite possibly engage in action that seem quite illogical to those who are not possessed of all the said information and yet still be acting completely logically.

I would say that logic is logic, there's nothing specifically "human" about it. What qualifies as a "correct" solution to any given problem, I think much depends upon the domain of inquiry you're in. For example, the correct solution to an equation is not of the same kind, say, as the correct solution to the problem of whether or not you should break up with a boyfriend/girlfriend.

I think you're right that new information can always give us cause to review whether our solution, to date, is adequate; but you should be consistent in the application of that principle. In other words, if it's always possible that new information can invalidate a current solution, there is no absolutely final solution to any problem.

Moreover, I think logicians have demonstrated that it is in principle not possible to possess all information. This is a (onto)logical truth, something that holds for any being who deals with logic, not human beings alone...

 

[JBeukema]

Put it this way a being with access to all availble information can quite possibly engage in action that seem quite illogical to those who are not possessed of all the said information and yet still be acting completely logically.

That doesn't effect or reflect upon your logic. You can have sound logic and reasoning, even with bad information. You will simply end up with an incorrect conclusion. Consider Newton.

 

[garyd]

JB that was the point of my first paragraph.

Polaris you are of course quite correct it isn't possible for human beings to possess all available knowledge. That, however, does not imply in the least as to whether or not a being can exist who does posses all knowledge.

 

[JBeukema]

And on the Eigth day, god spoketh, and He said: I wonder whether there is a greater deity still, which hath madeth me and all that I know- and he sought The God of the Gods.

And the God of the Gods came to him and said: I am the creator, the desire, and the dream. I am that which dwelleth within the mind of man.

...

 

[Polaris]

Garyd - no, I said,

I think logicians have demonstrated that it is in principle not possible to possess all information. This is a (onto)logical truth, something that holds for any being who deals with logic, not human beings alone...

The point here is that there is no mind, no being, that can possess all knowledge. If this is correct, it can be understood as a proof (a logical proof) of the non-existence of God...

What reason do we have for thinking that, if there exists a solution to a given problem, that humans cannot in principle find it out - ? We may at no given time possess the solutions to all problems - but this is not to say, that there exist problems for which there are solutions, but which we cannot - in principle could not - ever figure out solutions.

Duns Scotus, one of the greatest philosopher-theologians of the Middle Ages, I think glossed this point, when he argued against an equivocal understanding of 'reason' between God and human beings. There is not "one version" of logic for men, and another version (a better one, so runs the conceit) for God. Logic is logic.

 

[garyd]

I don't think the supposition you state can be fulfilled Polaris simply because it is a self contained paradox. Simply put if we do not possess all knowledge then how can we be sure that some being somewhere cannot. If some being acutally created this place than he would of course know everthing there was to know about what he created.

 

[Polaris]

Garyd,

Well, the logical result that I am alluding to, would I think state that we can prove that consummate knowledge is impossible through a kind of contradiction-proof. What that means, is: we would suppose that there exists a mind that knows all truths; and then from this very premise deduce the existence of truths which could not possibly be known by that mind. In the case of God, let's say, these could be truths about the nature of God's character or the origin of his power; these are not things that God is the cause of, but they must be there in order for him to create in the first place. Thus, in order for God to "know everything," be the cause of everything, he couldn't know truly everything...

On the other hand, if you try to resolve this paradox by identifying God with what he knows, you vitiate the distinction between knower and known which is logically necessary for knowledge in the first place. Either way, by these arguments, we can know that no being has total knowledge, because it is logically impossible.

 

[JW Frogen]

I have it on good authority that all theists secretly love Barry Manilow.

 

[editec]

If one had ALL information, one would not NEED logic, folks.

Logic is a problem solving tool.

Obviously if one knows everything one doesn't need to have a tool that helps one arrive at the correct answer.

There is one rule of logic that people who really understand logic never forget.

GIGO.

That rule of logic helps truly intelligent people keep an open mind about their analysis.

 

[We Are They]

It's not logical to believe in something for which there is at this time NO FUCKING PROOF!

So I guess the answer would have to be: they think they do.

 

[editec]

It's not logical to believe in something for which there is at this time NO FUCKING PROOF!

True.

That's why they have the word FAITH to describe beliefs which one cannot prove based on evidence, information, or logic stemming from those things.

Have you ever been to TOGO?

No?

Then how do you KNOW it's there?

Logic you say?

Nonsense.

You know it there because sources you have FAITH in, tell you it's there.

My point here is merely to show you that logic is not the opposite of faith.

They're different, of course, but they are not opposite things.

 

[We Are They]

It's not logical to believe in something for which there is at this time NO FUCKING PROOF!

True.

That's why they have the word FAITH to describe beliefs which one cannot prove based on evidence, information, or logic stemming from those things.

Have you ever been to TOGO?

No?

Then how do you KNOW it's there?

Logic you say?

Nonsense.

You know it there because sources you have FAITH in, tell you it's there.

My point here is merely to show you that logic is not the opposite of faith.

They're different, of course, but they are not opposite things.

geez, are you really that simple? Millions of people live in togo, it's not faith you fool, it's FACT. PROVABLE FACT. Logic has zero to do with your bogus example.

 

[JBeukema]

We Are They shows his stupidity again

To determining Togo (whatever that is) exists because 'it's a provable fact' is logic

 

[We Are They]

Togo, the country, ever heard of it? geez, I'm arguing with a bunch of simpletons.

 

[JW Frogen]

Ego or God?

Your choice.