reddix' questions

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron, Matt8819, Ironclad

Re: reddix' questions

#41  Postby ADParker » Jun 22, 2010 5:37 am

Ah I see that "Evidence" post to to which your latest question was referring.

It's actually a fairly silly question. Michael says "There are many forms and types of evidence", ask him what kinds there are. And from there you can address what value you see in each. You don't have to give some kind of full blown complete textbook answer to any question, it IS okay to ask questions back in order to get to what is really being asked of you.

Oh, and "building a worldview" is not a simple linear process, worldviews grow and 'evolve' through ones experiences. Yes over time one starts to value certain ways of looking at things (rationally, emotionally, to certain ends etc.) but it all tends to be rather 'organic' in nature.

Over all just be honest, including your ignorance and lack of expertise and experience in certain matters.
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
Moderator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 4695
Age: 42
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: reddix' questions

#42  Postby reddix » Jul 25, 2010 4:35 am

Is it possible for something to be logically consistent and still be wrong?
User avatar
reddix
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 5705
Age: 4

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: reddix' questions

#43  Postby ADParker » Jul 25, 2010 5:58 am

reddix wrote:Is it possible for something to be logically consistent and still be wrong?

consistent? Sure.
A great deal of logic does not deal with deductive proofs, but less definite ideas, of probability and plausibility.

Any specific example which led to to ask?
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
Moderator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 4695
Age: 42
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: reddix' questions

#44  Postby Redial » Jul 25, 2010 6:08 am

reddix wrote:Is it possible for something to be logically consistent and still be wrong?


Yes. like there was this one time that this guy made this big speech about how he wanted to kill himself because this world is just a state of existence between non-existence and whatever, anyway it made heaps of sense and then he did actually kill himself (he was a bit crazy) and it didn't make as much sense after that... :crazy:
Evolving wrote:Mine looks as though it fits into Redial's piece.


Spinozasgalt wrote:I wish I was a lady, I imagine being female is akin to flying through clouds.
User avatar
Redial
RS Donator
 
Name: Redialtherednosereinde
Posts: 9094
Age: 26
Female

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: reddix' questions

#45  Postby MattHunX » Jul 25, 2010 6:19 am

reddix wrote:Is it possible for something to be logically consistent and still be wrong?


Maybe if something is missing from it, perhaps. Like an equation which final lines are missing. Consistent, but not right just yet, it's unfinished, wrong. :dunno:
User avatar
MattHunX
 
Posts: 9981

Print view this post

Re: reddix' questions

#46  Postby MattHunX » Jul 25, 2010 6:24 am

Redial wrote:
reddix wrote:Is it possible for something to be logically consistent and still be wrong?


Yes. like there was this one time that this guy made this big speech about how he wanted to kill himself because this world is just a state of existence between non-existence and whatever, anyway it made heaps of sense and then he did actually kill himself (he was a bit crazy) and it didn't make as much sense after that... :crazy:


Well, belief in an after-life, or in a state between existence and non-existence, is the same as all religious beliefs. They don't involve much if any logic. If they would, it wouldn't be called faith. It's adherents only believe that their faith is logical and true because it was what they were fed from early childhood. They are easily convinced by otherwise illogical arguments, like the ontological one. They listen to a man like William Lane Craig and many think he's smart and speaks the truth, because they've been brought up to think different. Logic works differently for theist.
User avatar
MattHunX
 
Posts: 9981

Print view this post

Re: reddix' questions

#47  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » Jul 25, 2010 6:45 am

reddix wrote:Is it possible for something to be logically consistent and still be wrong?


If we say human logic, then yes it is possible because our logic can fail. For example at one point in time it was probably logically consistent to think the world is flat.

But what do people think, if there was a world where we knew how everything worked, and we had infinite information. Could something be logically consistent and still wrong?
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6672
Age: 21
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: reddix' questions

#48  Postby reddix » Jul 25, 2010 6:59 am

ADParker wrote:
reddix wrote:Is it possible for something to be logically consistent and still be wrong?

consistent? Sure.
A great deal of logic does not deal with deductive proofs, but less definite ideas, of probability and plausibility.

Any specific example which led to to ask?

If someone could logically explain God's existence does that make it true, or is it still possible for it to be false?
User avatar
reddix
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 5705
Age: 4

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: reddix' questions

#49  Postby MattHunX » Jul 25, 2010 8:12 am

reddix wrote:
ADParker wrote:
reddix wrote:Is it possible for something to be logically consistent and still be wrong?

consistent? Sure.
A great deal of logic does not deal with deductive proofs, but less definite ideas, of probability and plausibility.

Any specific example which led to to ask?

If someone could logically explain God's existence does that make it true, or is it still possible for it to be false?


What? We can all assume that a god created all this, still. But, we can do without that assumption. Just look at the way the religious always move the goal post. First they didn't want to accept the Earth went around the Sun, then they didn't want to accept (or believe) evolution (many still don't), but those who do now, say that the big bang was the work of a god, a god started all. Of course, they still don't consider that even if that was the case, such a being would be incredibly incompetent and callous. But, the one simple and infantile explanation, that is easy to swallow if one doesn't consider physics and looks into astronomy, cosmology, biology...etc. just a bit (the design part of it) is enough for them, because it is simple. It's seems perfectly logical for them that the whole grand and complex universe couldn't have just exploded out and formed this way for us to be here talking about it. Some are satisfied with such an explanation (even though it is unnecessary, but perhaps they don't look deeper into it), some need such explanation (the world makes better sense to them, somehow, and they are insecure if they don't have something to hold onto), some are just brought up to believe (and some to not even question it).
User avatar
MattHunX
 
Posts: 9981

Print view this post

Re: reddix' questions

#50  Postby Redial » Jul 25, 2010 8:43 am

God is real Reddix. But i'm a christian so I may be biased/brainwashed/happily ignorant... whatever :)
Evolving wrote:Mine looks as though it fits into Redial's piece.


Spinozasgalt wrote:I wish I was a lady, I imagine being female is akin to flying through clouds.
User avatar
Redial
RS Donator
 
Name: Redialtherednosereinde
Posts: 9094
Age: 26
Female

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: reddix' questions

#51  Postby MattHunX » Jul 25, 2010 8:46 am

Redial wrote:God is real Reddix. But i'm a christian so I may be biased/brainwashed/happily ignorant... whatever :)

Self-Ad-Hominem? :)
User avatar
MattHunX
 
Posts: 9981

Print view this post

Re: reddix' questions

#52  Postby Callan » Jul 25, 2010 8:59 am

MattHunX wrote:
Redial wrote:God is real Reddix. But i'm a christian so I may be biased/brainwashed/happily ignorant... whatever :)

Self-Ad-Hominem? :)


That's got be be against the FUA, surely?
:evilgrin:
The banana is. I will eat the banana. There is no banana. I want another banana.
User avatar
Callan
 
Posts: 4969
Age: 45
Female

England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: reddix' questions

#53  Postby Redial » Jul 25, 2010 9:01 am

Wikipedia Wrote The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate
Evolving wrote:Mine looks as though it fits into Redial's piece.


Spinozasgalt wrote:I wish I was a lady, I imagine being female is akin to flying through clouds.
User avatar
Redial
RS Donator
 
Name: Redialtherednosereinde
Posts: 9094
Age: 26
Female

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: reddix' questions

#54  Postby ADParker » Jul 25, 2010 10:44 am

reddix wrote:
If someone could logically explain God's existence does that make it true, or is it still possible for it to be false?

What is meant by explaining God's existence? That's the question.

Sorry, you are really being far too vague. Has someone made an argument for the existence of God?
If so of what sort? Is it an attempt at a logical deductive proof? (If so, and it is logically sound, then it must be true, and God has been proven.)
Or is it simply an argument that God fits within the available data of existence? In that case (again if a good argument) then it would only be true that God fits, not that God is real. To claim that would be to commit he Argument from Ignorance known as The God of the Gaps.

Please just present the argument if there is one. Otherwise I fear this will get us nowhere.
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
Moderator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 4695
Age: 42
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: reddix' questions

#55  Postby Thommo » Jul 25, 2010 10:49 am

reddix wrote:Is it possible for something to be logically consistent and still be wrong?


It depends what you mean.

Newton's theory of gravity is internally logically consistent and "wrong" in that the physical predictions it makes become increasingly inaccurate under certain conditions and are never perfectly accurate under any conditions that are actually observed.

Internal consistency is generally held to be an absolute minimum standard for an idea - if it's not consistent then it's inconsistent or "self-contradictory"/"self-refuting".
jamest wrote:Taken as a whole, I've talked quite a lot of bollocks.
Thommo
 
Posts: 12588

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: reddix' questions

#56  Postby ADParker » Jul 25, 2010 10:50 am

Redial wrote:God is real Reddix.

That's a good point, but...No hang on it's an empty assertion. :roll:

Redial wrote: But i'm a christian so I may be biased/brainwashed/happily ignorant... whatever :)

Indoctrinated, mistaken...or even correct, but with no reasons presented to support this assertion, what's the bloody point, why should anyone believe you?
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
Moderator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 4695
Age: 42
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: reddix' questions

#57  Postby Redial » Jul 25, 2010 12:27 pm

not asking to be believed, just stating a fact. so ner
Evolving wrote:Mine looks as though it fits into Redial's piece.


Spinozasgalt wrote:I wish I was a lady, I imagine being female is akin to flying through clouds.
User avatar
Redial
RS Donator
 
Name: Redialtherednosereinde
Posts: 9094
Age: 26
Female

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: reddix' questions

#58  Postby GenesForLife » Jul 25, 2010 3:53 pm

We're just calling your "fact" of a real Sky Daddy an unsubstantiated blind assertion, so ner ner ner ner ner.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2872
Age: 25
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: reddix' questions

#59  Postby Lee Vegas » Jul 25, 2010 4:36 pm

ADParker wrote:
reddix wrote:
If someone could logically explain God's existence does that make it true, or is it still possible for it to be false?
...
...
Please just present the argument if there is one. Otherwise I fear this will get us nowhere.


God is love
Love is blind
Stevie Wonder is blind
Ergo...

LV
"Throughout history every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic! -- Tim Minchin
User avatar
Lee Vegas
 
Posts: 127
Age: 46
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: reddix' questions

#60  Postby MrGray » Jul 25, 2010 10:27 pm

GenesForLife wrote:We're just calling your "fact" of a real Sky Daddy an unsubstantiated blind assertion, so ner ner ner ner ner.


Made me blow coffee out of my holes man..
Hnau wrote:..we mournfully slice off their heads while loving them.

hackenslash wrote:Because the mind is a blank slate at birth. It is impossible to have a conception of a really fuckwitted idea until you've actually grown some stupidity.
User avatar
MrGray
 
Posts: 753
Male

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest