<p>talkin bout evidence = fundamentally misunderstands logic</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) You’re throwing in quantifiers where there were none before.
2) You’re making the unproven assumption that the bible is the be-all and end-all of Christian belief.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Logical fallacy. I can define “God.” God is an omniscient and omnipotent being.</p>
<p>we learned about logical fallacies in philosophy, this year. agreed, it would have been great to learn about it earlier. maybe it would have lessened the amount of ignorance spewing from people’s mouths : P</p>
<p>“Logical fallacy. I can define “God.” God is an omniscient and omnipotent being.”</p>
<p>lol, are you serious? just because you pull from a dictionary, doesn’t mean that is a <em>definite</em> statement. & you wouldn’t be able to get every single person on this planet to agree with you, either. words, themselves, aren’t even <em>definite</em>. furthermore, it’s not a ‘logical fallacy’ to NOT be able to define something. good god…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting that you mention this as I was always taught that God’s omnipotence was limited only by the bounds of logical coherence.</p>
<p>this thread is now totally ■■■■■■■■. good job guys.</p>
<p>if you really think you’ve got the smarts to disprove a religion, you’re an idiot. It’s perhaps the only thing that will logically exist beyond it’s own inconsistencies and proven fallacies. So hows bout spending time arguing things that can be argued, and stop looking like a tard.</p>
<p>I think it’s dangerous to teach people fallacies without actually teaching them logic, as then they will often fail to understand the scope and true meaning of those fallacies. And if one has a proper grasp of logic, knowledge the fallacies themselves is superfluous, as they should be easily spotted anyway.</p>
<p>
Base rate fallacy: using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability.
Moving the goalpost (raising the bar): argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded
Wishful thinking: a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason</p>
<p>What’s that about evidence and understanding logic?</p>
<p>
You told me that god is all-knowing and all-powerful, but you didn’t tell me what god is…</p>
<p>^ i think you’re missing the point. For something that is understood to be beyond human understanding and breadth; would it be logical to assume we’d be able to define it? Because we cannot grasp something with our own language, does that mean it doesn’t exist?</p>
<p>See, this is what I mean. You think that you understand logic because someone gave you a list of fallacies.</p>
<p>Man, I’d love to see gotakun vs. Godel on the existence of God.</p>
<p>lol 10char</p>
<p>I second that lol!</p>
<p>^ AH-HAH! the LOGIC warrior is here - he will show us the way! lol ;)</p>
<p>
This.</p>
<p>If you judge the merit of a religion by the historical accuracy of their cherished documents, you missed the entire point of the endeavor. The stories in the bible were written by people who shared their own thoughts (e.g. about the origin or purpose of life), experiences and third-hand accounts of events that may or may not have happened. You should not expect it to be any more accurate than a therapy session or rumors you heard during recess in fourth grade.</p>
<p>Rather, I would argue that the purpose of religion is to provide us with a framework that lets us live safer and more comfortable lives, both as individuals and as a society (with the emphasis often being on society). This was particularly relevant in the past when social welfare and criminal justice systems were nonexistent. If murder was more common, we would live in constant fear of each other. Hence murder is heavily discouraged in most religions. If we accepted our own pleasure as the primary goal of life, we would be very selfish, society would deteriorate and everyone would be worse off as a result. If we considered life and death to be random and meaningless, we would be a lot more distressed by unpleasant events than if we believed that those events had an ulterior purpose.</p>
<p>Historical stories are a nice addition, but not central to the purpose or message of religion. Neither is the existence of a god for that matter. If you think about it, god is usually used as a placeholder (someone who listens when no one else listens, someone who will punish you for breaking the rules, someone who created the universe) or as an explanation/justification for the basic moral principles. You can exclude historical documents and god completely and the moral values would stand as they are.</p>
<p>If you want to prove the logical inconsistency of Christianity, you will have to show that their principles and beliefs (“axioms”) contradict each other. That’s the ONLY way to show that a system of assumptions is inconsistent.</p>
<p>We have spiraled way off topic. There is obviously confusion about logical reasoning and logical fallacies, otherwise we wouldn’t be disagreeing. Look how important it is… By my understanding, it is possible to prove that the belief in a religion is illogical. By others, it is possible to prove that it is logical.</p>
<p>But knowing how to apply logic in everyday situations can be just as important as applying it in religion. Maybe it would be possible for students to grasp the financial and political realities of the world or to understand that good intentions are not always enough to make a difference (or, in the case of environment preservation, “going green,” the difference is insignificant). How useful would it be if everyone actually paid attention to the credibility of their sources? I think adopting a logical mindset could directly lead to a reduction in prejudice. Students would make wiser, safer choices. I could go on… But I kind of assumed it would be widely accepted that being taught logic would be beneficial. I’m confused by the opposition in this thread :.</p>
<p>Do me a favor and define the term illogical. For the mathematicians on this thread, illogical means logically inconsistent, i.e. self-contradictory. In everyday language, illogical means contrary to common sense. Which definition are you working with?</p>
<p>In my world, common sense is synonymous with logic. You defined illogical, so what are you asking of me? To use your terms, I am saying it’s possible to prove that the belief in a religion contradicts logic, that logic contradicts the belief in a religion. If you want to continue, feel free to PM me. If you choose to do that, please make sure to include the statement you are proving or disproving.</p>
<p>
This means that LogicWorrier, ThisCouldBeHeavn, mathboy98, me and others on this thread have been arguing about very different things than you have been arguing. Formal logic (mathematical logic) is fundamentally different from common sense logic.</p>
<p>I think that we can all move on with our lives now.</p>
<p>Maybe it’s you who should define common sense and explain how it differs from any other logic…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ah yes my precise argument of “lol 10char”</p>
<p>also i’m not worried about anything, get my name right son</p>
<p>“This means that LogicWorrier, ThisCouldBeHeavn, mathboy98, me and others on this thread have been arguing about very different things than you have been arguing.”</p>
<p>there’s a theory in philosophy that states that it’s not even possible for human beings TO argue, since we obvi can’t define words by some means other then using more words. hread.</p>