What do we replace religion with?[W:675]

[Divine_Wind]

FWIW, irrational arguments are invalid since they are illogical. Despite the claims of others, there is no such thing as a valid logical argument that is irrational.

 

[ipsofacto]

I find that people are mixing up logic with the term 'rational'. Logic is reasoning, is not not necessarily rational.

There are really no fixed definitions of each word. Usually "logic" refers to the formal relation of parts of an argument. "Rational" refers to whether the argument as a whole makes sense.

 

[Divine_Wind]

How very condending. IF you want a link, rather than understand my words, I will be very glad look it up.

Here is a link that gets into more detail about what I said, by showing the logical fallacies of the Kalam argument.


Refutation of the Kalam cosmological argument (and others)

You are free to deny your condescending remark by without a counter-accusation. With Trump in office, it's become vogue to do so even though I disagree with it.

The point being is that you were asked to provide proof of a logical irrational argument and, IMO, have failed. The Kalam cosmological argument isn't rational or logical since it makes unproven assumptions.

I find that people are mixing up logic with the term 'rational'. Logic is reasoning, is not not necessarily rational.

If something is irrational, then it is not logical.

 

[gfm7175]

I'm not your 'son'. Remember that and DO NOT refer to me as such again!

It's an expression... Take a chill pill...

 

[gfm7175]

Religion should be replaced by logical thinking.

Religion IS valid Logic...

 

[Divine_Wind]

Religion IS valid Logic...

Sorry, but a slight disagreement there. Like Ramoss's attempt to use Kalam's cosmological argument as an example of an irrational logical argument, religion, while an attempt to apply logic to the non-rational, something that defies logic and is beyond the natural universe, isn't logical for the same reasons Kalam's argument wasn't logical. It makes "irrational" assumptions to formulate a logical theory. Ergo, the entire argument becomes illogical.

FWIW, saying faith in God is irrational is both true and not an insult. Love is irrational. If loving someone was logical, then it isn't love. It's a business deal, an alliance or something "logical".

It's an expression... Take a chill pill...

Angry people have little to no control over their emotions. Anger management is a treatment, but it doesn't always take. IMO, finding the reason for their anger, often a source of pain, is the best solution.

 

[gfm7175]

Do you have an example of where logic and/or reasoning is not rational?

I can give you a much more straightforward example than "Roundabout RAMOSS" did in which reasoning can be irrational...

When one argues a paradox, one is reasoning irrationally. For example, if one were to argue "god(s) do not exist" then later on argue "I am not an atheist", they would be arguing a paradox (1: I am an atheist... 2: I am NOT an atheist), and thus being irrational in their reasoning.

The adherence to logic is always rational reasoning, however.

 

[RAMOSS]

You are free to deny your condescending remark by without a counter-accusation. With Trump in office, it's become vogue to do so even though I disagree with it.

The point being is that you were asked to provide proof of a logical irrational argument and, IMO, have failed. The Kalam cosmological argument isn't rational or logical since it makes unproven assumptions. If something is irrational, then it is not logical.

You are using invalid definition, and making unreasonable assumptions. You are misapplying the term 'logical'. That is the fallacy of 'equivocation'. Logical and rational are related, but not interchangeable.

 

[soylentgreen]

Let's pause and think about this:
Your reason for not believing in God, you say, is that others have not provided you with a reason to believe in God?

Man, you make atheism a joke!
Sartre and Camus are turning over in their graves.

This new brand of cowardly atheism is irrational on it smirking face.
Good luck with it.

So pausing and thinking about this for you is to repeat the statement and then launch into insults because you have nothing else to offer.

 

[gfm7175]

Sorry, but a slight disagreement there. Like Ramoss's attempt to use Kalam's cosmological argument as an example of an irrational logical argument, religion, while an attempt to apply logic to the non-rational, something that defies logic and is beyond the natural universe, isn't logical for the same reasons Kalam's argument wasn't logical. It makes "irrational" assumptions to formulate a logical theory. Ergo, the entire argument becomes illogical.

FWIW, saying faith in God is irrational is both true and not an insult. Love is irrational. If loving someone was logical, then it isn't love. It's a business deal, an alliance or something "logical".

First, I'll just say that asserting that an assumption is "rational" or "irrational" gets rather tricky because "reality" itself is a rather tricky subject... To save time and space, I won't expand upon that particular point unless requested. Moving onto part #1...

Religion is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it. So, that means that the foundation of any religion is a circular argument. Are circular arguments logical arguments? In and of themselves, yes they are... the conclusion follows from the predicate, thus it is logically valid reasoning, thus rational reasoning. Circular arguments only become illogical and irrational when one tries to prove them. That is referred to as the circular argument fallacy. So yeah, I'd agree that our disagreement here is slight.

Now, in 2nd part, let's get into the Kalam Cosmological Argument specifically. I used to be a staunch defender of all of Craig's arguments (a lot of it due to my previous religious fundamentalism), but at this point, this is at least one of his arguments which I am not a staunch defender of anymore. I will say that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is definitely logical in form (deductive reasoning), and the conclusion does follow from the premises. The argument, as a general whole, is logical and rational.

The problem with advancing the conclusion of this argument, however, lies in Premise #2 (The universe began to exist). Premise #2 cannot be proven in any way since we have no functional time machine to go back in time and observe whether the universe had a beginning or not. Thus, we can only make use of supporting evidence, and supporting evidence is not proof of anything. Craig is essentially arguing in Premise #2 that the supporting evidence for the universe having a beginning is more convincing than the supporting evidence for the universe not having a beginning. That may be true, yet that may be false. We simply don't know for sure. The conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument fully depends upon whether one religiously accepts or religiously denies Premise #2. In the end, Accepters/Deniers are both logical and rational in their acceptance/denial of Premise #2, since there is no way to prove that premise. One can only make use of supporting evidence.

Angry people have little to no control over their emotions. Anger management is a treatment, but it doesn't always take. IMO, finding the reason for their anger, often a source of pain, is the best solution.

Yup, one needs to identify the cause of their anger issues before they can attempt to fix their anger issues. Otherwise, they are merely treating symptoms/avoiding triggers...

 

[Divine_Wind]

I can give you a much more straightforward example than "Roundabout RAMOSS" did in which reasoning can be irrational...

When one argues a paradox, one is reasoning irrationally. For example, if one were to argue "god(s) do not exist" then later on argue "I am not an atheist", they would be arguing a paradox (1: I am an atheist... 2: I am NOT an atheist), and thus being irrational in their reasoning.

The adherence to logic is always rational reasoning, however.

Agreed adherence to loic is always rational reasoning, but disagreed that arguing a paradox is logical. If I argue that if pigs could fly, you and I could make a fortune selling helmets, that looks logical but it presupposes an impossibility so it's irrational and illogical.

 

[ipsofacto]

I can give you a much more straightforward example than "Roundabout RAMOSS" did in which reasoning can be irrational...

When one argues a paradox, one is reasoning irrationally. For example, if one were to argue "god(s) do not exist" then later on argue "I am not an atheist", they would be arguing a paradox (1: I am an atheist... 2: I am NOT an atheist), and thus being irrational in their reasoning.

The adherence to logic is always rational reasoning, however.

Your example is really just contradiction. "Paradox" refers to an irresovable contradiction.

 

[gfm7175]

Agreed adherence to loic is always rational reasoning, but disagreed that arguing a paradox is logical.

Are you saying arguing a paradox is logical, or that it is illogical? I have the feeling that we don't actually disagree here...

If I argue that if pigs could fly, you and I could make a fortune selling helmets, that looks logical but it presupposes an impossibility so it's irrational and illogical.

That argument is logical in form, but I agree that a pig's inability to fly is a truth.

 

[gfm7175]

Your example is really just contradiction. "Paradox" refers to an irresovable contradiction.

There's nothing irresolvable about paradoxes... Paradoxes can be resolved by completely discarding one of the two conflicting positions.

A paradox occurs when one simultaneously argues in support of two opposing positions.

 

[ipsofacto]

There's nothing irresolvable about paradoxes... Paradoxes can be resolved by completely discarding one of the two conflicting positions.

A paradox occurs when one simultaneously argues in support of two opposing positions.

"By “paradox” one usually means a statement claiming something which goes beyond (or even against) ‘common opinion’ (what is usually believed or held). Paradoxes form a natural object of philosophical investigation ever since the origins of rational thought; they have been invented as part of complex arguments and as tools for refuting philosophical theses (think of the celebrated paradoxes credited to Zeno of Elea, concerning motion, the continuum, the opposition between unity and plurality, or of the arguments entangling the notions of truth and vagueness, credited to the Megarian School, and Eubulides of Miletus)."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradoxes-contemporary-logic/


Light can be measured as a particle and a wave. Both are true. This is an example of a paradox.

 

[zyzygy]

"By “paradox” one usually means a statement claiming something which goes beyond (or even against) ‘common opinion’ (what is usually believed or held). Paradoxes form a natural object of philosophical investigation ever since the origins of rational thought; they have been invented as part of complex arguments and as tools for refuting philosophical theses (think of the celebrated paradoxes credited to Zeno of Elea, concerning motion, the continuum, the opposition between unity and plurality, or of the arguments entangling the notions of truth and vagueness, credited to the Megarian School, and Eubulides of Miletus)."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradoxes-contemporary-logic/


Light can be measured as a particle and a wave. Both are true. This is an example of a paradox.

So what shall we disregard? The particle or the wave?

 

[ipsofacto]

So what shall we disregard? The particle or the wave?

Neither. They are both true. Now you get it.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Are you saying arguing a paradox is logical, or that it is illogical? I have the feeling that we don't actually disagree here...


That argument is logical in form, but I agree that a pig's inability to fly is a truth.

A paradox is illogical. It can't happen. Therefore something else must be happening. Example: IF (notice the "if"?) you travel back in time and killed your grandfather before he had children, how could you exist to kill your grandfather? Paradox. You can't. Ergo, something else has to happen such as alternative timeline. A paradox is illogical, irrational, cannot happen.

 

[devildavid]

I can give you a much more straightforward example than "Roundabout RAMOSS" did in which reasoning can be irrational...

When one argues a paradox, one is reasoning irrationally. For example, if one were to argue "god(s) do not exist" then later on argue "I am not an atheist", they would be arguing a paradox (1: I am an atheist... 2: I am NOT an atheist), and thus being irrational in their reasoning.

The adherence to logic is always rational reasoning, however.

Saying gods do not exist is not an argument. Saying I am not an atheist is not an argument. Statements are not arguments.

 

[goldkam]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

Ahhhh, the ol' "RAMOSS mantra"... This mantra results from a denial of Philosophy.


That's precisely what I said...


I already supported it. I've given the purpose for dictionaries, and I have argued that dictionary definitions quite often contradict each other. Which dictionary is the authoritative and correct dictionary? Oxford? Cambridge? dictionary.com?


Nope, there are outright contradictions...


Nope, my argument is quite valid. Here, you deny Logic.


Nope. I use them whenever I notice that you make an error of logic. I'll stop calling out your fallacies once you stop committing them...


Strawman... I never said that you were religion. An initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it is a religion.


I'm not forcing you to believe anything. I don't have the capabilities to do that...


No idea what you're on about here...


Not a theory, an observation. A theory, rather, would be an explanatory argument. That's all a theory is.


Facts are not universal truths, nor are they proofs. Facts are shorthand predicate accepted by all conversing parties. That's all facts are. They speed up conversations. Learn what a fact is...

Again, NOT a theory; an observation. A theory is an explanatory argument.

Science cannot and does not prove anything... Science is an open functional system, and only CLOSED functional systems make use of proofs. Proof is an extension of foundational axioms. Learn what a proof is...

1- Support your claims with links to the teachings, academics or doctrine. It simply. I use the definitions and dictionaries. You use some unknown philosophical teaching (which may not even be credible).

2- Incredible. You are the only person I have ever met that denies this. I WOULD LIKE TO ENSURE THAT I AM NOT GOING CRAZY. COULD SOMEONE ELSE PLEASE CONFIRM THIS ABSURDITY OF "THAT DICTIONARIES DON'T DEFINE WORDS.

So where do definitions derive from??

3- Once again they are all similar in nature, with some minor differences that don't effect the meaning of the word. You also don't seem to account for the regions or areas in which these dictionaries derive from, where meanings are slightly different. For example a thong in the US is very different to the meaning of a thong in other parts of the world.

We must base our words and what we state off something. Dictionaries are this benchmark and have been for decades. The proposal you make is by no means universal or even considered by society. Education systems teaches us to do this through dictionaries, yet you seem to deny education systems and their teachings.

4- That claim is false and largely interpretive.

5- I deny philosophy presented by an individual that cannot back it up with any academic weight, sources, links or the like. Your views are not universally held. Your views are not supported. Your views are not upheld in modern day society. Logic would say if you are going to present a view you back it up with something supportive.

6- You are willing to critique my views, yet want to deny that Dictionaries define words.....This is a forum not some English or Debating classroom where I am getting marked for performance.

7- Never stated your were forcing me, if you read the statement I said "forcing a point" in other words your quite adamant and forth-fronting with your points.

8- I asked a simply question...."So my parents didn't teach me according to your fallacy??" Is that true or not??

9- So now Science as a whole is not a set of falsifiable theories as you claimed two posts ago. You are now stating it is a set of falsifiable theories and observations?? A level of consistency is needed in an argument not simply exploring one part of the truth.

10- I don't need you to tell me what to learn. This is coming from someone who has no proof, no weight to their argument and claims dictionaries don't provide definitions.

 

[Angel]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

Saying gods do not exist is not an argument. Saying I am not an atheist is not an argument. Statements are not arguments.

Oy! You cannot even read elliptical clauses with comprehension and yet you insist on flying with the eagle!

Pay attention.

When gfm7175 (or anyone else writing in English) writes:

...if one were to argue "god(s) do not exist" then later on argue "I am not an atheist"...

there are only two ways to read these words correctly.

One of the correct ways is to read an implied "that" before each of the noun clauses, and to read the noun clauses as the compound direct object of the verb "were to argue":

...if one were to argue (THAT) "god(s) do not exist" then later on argue (THAT) "I am not an atheist....

A second way to read the sentence correctly is to under stand the clauses in quotes as naming the proposition that is being argued, as in a debate where one side argues for the proposition "Gods exist" and the opposing team argues for the proposition "Gods do not exist."

The way to misread the sentence, or to read the sentence incorrectly, is the way you read the sentence, taking the quoted words as arguments.

Your posts over time have consistently displayed symptoms of poor reading comprehension. It may be that you're just dashing off posts and not paying enough attention to the posts of others, or it may be that a paucity of reading over a lifetime has atrophied the reading faculties. I don't know, and no doubt you don't know or don't care or are not even aware of the symptoms or their cause.

I post here to point out what I've pointed out because gfm7175 is a friend of mine and I resent your ill use of him.

 

[DDD]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

1- Support your claims with links to the teachings, academics or doctrine. It simply. I use the definitions and dictionaries. You use some unknown philosophical teaching (which may not even be credible).

2- Incredible. You are the only person I have ever met that denies this. I WOULD LIKE TO ENSURE THAT I AM NOT GOING CRAZY. COULD SOMEONE ELSE PLEASE CONFIRM THIS ABSURDITY OF "THAT DICTIONARIES DON'T DEFINE WORDS.

So where do definitions derive from??

3- Once again they are all similar in nature, with some minor differences that don't effect the meaning of the word. You also don't seem to account for the regions or areas in which these dictionaries derive from, where meanings are slightly different. For example a thong in the US is very different to the meaning of a thong in other parts of the world.

We must base our words and what we state off something. Dictionaries are this benchmark and have been for decades. The proposal you make is by no means universal or even considered by society. Education systems teaches us to do this through dictionaries, yet you seem to deny education systems and their teachings.

4- That claim is false and largely interpretive.

5- I deny philosophy presented by an individual that cannot back it up with any academic weight, sources, links or the like. Your views are not universally held. Your views are not supported. Your views are not upheld in modern day society. Logic would say if you are going to present a view you back it up with something supportive.

6- You are willing to critique my views, yet want to deny that Dictionaries define words.....This is a forum not some English or Debating classroom where I am getting marked for performance.

7- Never stated your were forcing me, if you read the statement I said "forcing a point" in other words your quite adamant and forth-fronting with your points.

8- I asked a simply question...."So my parents didn't teach me according to your fallacy??" Is that true or not??

9- So now Science as a whole is not a set of falsifiable theories as you claimed two posts ago. You are now stating it is a set of falsifiable theories and observations?? A level of consistency is needed in an argument not simply exploring one part of the truth.

10- I don't need you to tell me what to learn. This is coming from someone who has no proof, no weight to their argument and claims dictionaries don't provide definitions.

I think he wants to diminish the value of evidence, lower its "status" sort of speak to a mere opinion, so as then to posit "See, science is just like religion!"

 

[DDD]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

Anyway,

Religion should be replaced by something that has statements that are supported with actual empirical evidence (for a change).

 

[gfm7175]

A paradox is illogical. It can't happen. Therefore something else must be happening. Example: IF (notice the "if"?) you travel back in time and killed your grandfather before he had children, how could you exist to kill your grandfather? Paradox. You can't. Ergo, something else has to happen such as alternative timeline. A paradox is illogical, irrational, cannot happen.

Then I think we agree that paradoxes are illogical and irrational.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: What do we replace religion with?

1- Support your claims with links to the teachings, academics or doctrine. It simply. I use the definitions and dictionaries. You use some unknown philosophical teaching (which may not even be credible).

I have already supported them...

2- Incredible. You are the only person I have ever met that denies this. I WOULD LIKE TO ENSURE THAT I AM NOT GOING CRAZY. COULD SOMEONE ELSE PLEASE CONFIRM THIS ABSURDITY OF "THAT DICTIONARIES DON'T DEFINE WORDS.

Plenty of people besides me realize that dictionaries do not come up with word definitions nor are dictionaries an authority...

So where do definitions derive from??

Philosophy, Logic, Science, History, Engineering, etc...

3- Once again they are all similar in nature, with some minor differences that don't effect the meaning of the word. You also don't seem to account for the regions or areas in which these dictionaries derive from, where meanings are slightly different. For example a thong in the US is very different to the meaning of a thong in other parts of the world.

Nope. English dictionaries contradict other English dictionaries... No two dictionaries are identical...

We must base our words and what we state off something. Dictionaries are this benchmark and have been for decades. The proposal you make is by no means universal or even considered by society. Education systems teaches us to do this through dictionaries, yet you seem to deny education systems and their teachings.

Yes, we base them off of Philosophy, Logic, Engineering, etc...

Dictionaries merely standardize spelling and punctuation...

I speak out against education systems when they are wrong. This is one of many areas where they are wrong.

4- That claim is false and largely interpretive.

No idea what claim you're taking about...

5- I deny philosophy presented by an individual that cannot back it up with any academic weight, sources, links or the like. Your views are not universally held. Your views are not supported. Your views are not upheld in modern day society. Logic would say if you are going to present a view you back it up with something supportive.

I've backed it up already... YOUR views aren't universally held either, so what's your point? --- Appeal to the Masses fallacy dismissed...

6- You are willing to critique my views, yet want to deny that Dictionaries define words.....This is a forum not some English or Debating classroom where I am getting marked for performance.

Exactly. I can critique your views AND tell you that dictionaries do not define words. Yes, this is a forum.

7- Never stated your were forcing me, if you read the statement I said "forcing a point" in other words your quite adamant and forth-fronting with your points.

Yes, I am confident in what I am asserting. I have heard no good counterargument to my points as of yet...

8- I asked a simply question...."So my parents didn't teach me according to your fallacy??" Is that true or not??

Didn't teach you what?

9- So now Science as a whole is not a set of falsifiable theories as you claimed two posts ago. You are now stating it is a set of falsifiable theories and observations?? A level of consistency is needed in an argument not simply exploring one part of the truth.

Strawman fallacy... I have only ever asserted that science is a set of falsifiable theories. YOU were trying to tell me that observations were theories, and I corrected you on the things that you asserted were theories which were actually observations.

10- I don't need you to tell me what to learn. This is coming from someone who has no proof, no weight to their argument and claims dictionaries don't provide definitions.

You sound very open-minded... (sarcasm)