Logic

@astrotheological,

Its what astrotheologists either lack or have too much of.

Logic is like the reasoning behind something, formulated by emotion, thought, an idea, etc. It is a way of thinking that usually comes to terms with rationality and critical thinking, and intellect.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Its what astrotheologists either lack or have too much of.

Logic is like the reasoning behind something, formulated by emotion, thought, an idea, etc. It is a way of thinking that usually comes to terms with rationality and critical thinking, and intellect.

Which is logical then, religion or science.
Its obvious that science is logical but how can religion be.

@astrotheological,

Logic is not influenced by emotion otherwise anything could be logical.

@astrotheological,

You missed what I was trying to say. Not influenced, but formulated. Well ok that may not be the right choice of words.

Religion is not about logic, at least the belief in God certainly isn't, but nor is not believing in God, because there is nothing to say God doesn't exist.

Logic is in this case paralleled through one's emotion, aka how he/she feels about something. If one sees thrill in believing in God and the hope for heaven after life then it is logical for them (if thats how they feel).

If one sees God as unecessary and perhaps foolish, for the dim witted, then it would be frustrating to believe in God, so you logically choose not to.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

You missed what I was trying to say. Not influenced, but formulated. Well ok that may not be the right choice of words.

Religion is not about logic, at least the belief in God certainly isn't, but nor is not believing in God, because there is nothing to say God doesn't exist.

Logic is in this case paralleled through one's emotion, aka how he/she feels about something. If one sees thrill in believing in God and the hope for heaven after life then it is logical for them (if thats how they feel).

If one sees God as unecessary and perhaps foolish, for the dim witted, then it would be frustrating to believe in God, so you logically choose not to.

Well then can there be any physical proof towards strengthening your own logic. Religion has no physical proof. Science does.

@astrotheological,

Holiday is right to the point when he asserts that logic is the reasoning behind something. Astrological's question as to what is logical, science or religion has a very good point as well. I would say that both hold some and the same ground as the other in regards to logic. But logic can be influenced by emotion. It can be anything, as long as the conclusion necessarily or sufficiently follows from the premises.To a point, logic is the science of reasoning. http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/logic/1442-propostional-logic-symposia-1-introduction-basics.html

@astrotheological,

Here is a simple definition:The law of non-contradiction. Stick with that one and you should be fine as long as you don't do any heavy lifting and take your vitamins three times a day.

Religion does not intersect science per se, its all a matter of interpretation. It can be read as philosophy presented in the form of parables and dialogue, whatever floats your boat.

The problem here is that you are coming in with an awful lot of dogmatic formulas and beliefs and you don't seem to have ever really examined yourself in a critical way. Whats worse is that you seem very closed to opinions which contradict yours due to how presumptive you are when it comes to the ideas of others. I hope that as you spend time on these forums your ideas will develop and you will find a point at which you can get the most out of your introspections.

@VideCorSpoon,

If logic can be all of those things then how would we describe something that is factual or that is proovable based on truth. The only thing that I can think of would be science.

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235 wrote:

Here is a simple definition:The law of non-contradiction. Stick with that one and you should be fine as long as you don't do any heavy lifting and take your vitamins three times a day.

Religion does not intersect science per se, its all a matter of interpretation. It can be read as philosophy presented in the form of parables and dialogue, whatever floats your boat.

The problem here is that you are coming in with an awful lot of dogmatic formulas and beliefs and you don't seem to have ever really examined yourself in a critical way. Whats worse is that you seem very closed to opinions which contradict yours due to how presumptive you are when it comes to the ideas of others. I hope that as you spend time on these forums your ideas will develop and you will find a point at which you can get the most out of your introspections.

Alright then but if you were to say that a logical statement would be
God rose the red sea to let the hebrews pass, how is that logical.

@VideCorSpoon,

Good and bad reasoning are not to be fully asserted through logic though. Good and bad would be determined by the situation, the state of the premises one can even make.

Reasoning is not just subjected to what is logical.

So the limit of logical reasoning is what can be displayed through empirical evidence or rationality? And maybe this is the real question behind whether a person is an empiricist or a rationalist.

Rationality implies no end however, which to me makes more sense. It is a more universal reasoning than basing logic upon empirical evidence because evidence has context only through subjective means. Good and bad is just as subjective but rationality is .... sorry my dad wanted my to do chores. Forgot what I was going to say. Actually can someone help me here because I am stuck on what diction to finish this blurb with. I know what I'm trying to say but its hard to quite say it.

@astrotheological,

Logic can only guarantee the validity of an argument, not the truth of its premises which have entirely different grounds for their being accepted as "true" or as a "fact." Logic is concerned with the structure of the argument, not its contents.

@jgweed,

jgweed wrote:

Logic can only guarantee the validity of an argument, not the truth of its premises which have entirely different grounds for their being accepted as "true" or as a "fact." Logic is concerned with the structure of the argument, not its contents.

Well then logic is flawed.

@astrotheological,

Isn't to say logic is flawed in many aspects analogous to saying that my chair is flawed because it cannot whistle "Dixie" or do card tricks?

Logic has its proper place and function in argumentation and analysis, and if it cannot by its very nature guarantee absolute truth, it can at the very least point out the invalidity of arguments and steer us away from that kind of falsity.

@jgweed,

jgweed wrote:

Isn't to say logic is flawed in many aspects analogous to saying that my chair is flawed because it cannot whistle "Dixie" or do card tricks?

Logic has its proper place and function in argumentation and analysis, and if it cannot by its very nature guarantee absolute truth, it can at the very least point out the invalidity of arguments and steer us away from that kind of falsity.

Yes but not all logic is truthful so it is flawed.

@astrotheological,

The very idea that logic is a credible, existent unit of measurement, or judgment in the first place is a matter of individual perspective. To define logic is to define perspective, a futile attempt in the way of finding an ultimate definition.

@astrotheological,

astrotheological wrote:

Yes but not all logic is truthful so it is flawed.

All things, having anything to do with humans, are flawed.

Philosophy Forum

Logic

Quick Links

My Account

able2know