Do You Have a Thinking Problem?

POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Friday, April 24, 2026 00:33
VIEWED: 13256
PAGE 4 of 17

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, August 28, 2006 1:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
That they are picking apart the way you are arguing and not discussing the point itself?

That's because THE WAY he made his point IS his point.

His point is this: religious thought and logical thought are mutually exclusive. They are separate and non-intersecting domains. Then he gave an example of one, a religious thought vs. two, a logical thought, both of which do not intersect.

What people are arguing is that those two thoughts are not the only options available. There might be all of the above, none of the above, 3rd and 4th thoughts that are both religious AND logical that he chose not to include.

Showing how his example is fallacious shows how his point is likewise fallacious. To artificially separate religion and logic into two mutually exclusive camps ignores a lot of logically valid options and possibilities.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, August 28, 2006 1:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
thats interesting... but you make a good point; the key message of the bible is that our earthly, physical bodies are only temporary, and are more or less vessels for our souls to manifest in the third dimension. the exciting concept though is the ressurrection, or Mans redemption, when we return to our "pre-fall" state, which is described as eternal(immortal), perfect, and in relationship with the living God. there are some who believe that this story of Man in our current stage is detailed by the Zodiac, of which of a full cycle represents Mans prophesied redemption ( i dug up this link as an example; im curious for the opinions of the more scientifically inclined http://www.mt.net/~watcher/newun.html ). i realize the bible appears simplistic at a glance, but the more time committed to researching its different facets, the more intriguing it becomes

My understanding is that the current Zodiac signs originated in the first century BC, which would have made it much too late to have influenced Ezekiel, which is dated to the sixth century BC. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t some astrological mythology present in the meaning of the books of the Bible, since ancient astronomy was closely tied to religion and many cultures developed their own astronomical coordinate system based on ecliptic constellations. I’m not familiar enough to be able to say what that mythology is however. But I do agree that the books of the Bible are far more complicated then people who are unfamiliar with them often gather. They aren’t stories invented on the spot, but rather oral traditions hundreds, sometimes thousands, of years in development, influenced by multiple cultures and the thoughts, observations and beliefs of hundreds of people. And that’s going to be true independent of any divine explanation.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGMANUNKI

Monday, August 28, 2006 2:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Showing how his example is fallacious shows how his point is likewise fallacious.

Wrong. False does not necessarily equal false in this context; we are not talking absolutes.

Also, all he said was "Two possibilities leap to mind:" This does not say that only two possibilities exists. Just that two poped into his mind.

Why do you have to read so much into it when those things don't necessarily exist (nor does the evidence support it).

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

SIGMANUNKI

Monday, August 28, 2006 2:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

I refuse to select one of Simon's two alternatives because they are quite clearly not the only two alternatives--that being the case, I select neither and point out the fallacy instead.

Well Simon never said that they were the only two either. So, where does that put you?

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, August 28, 2006 2:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Well Simon never said that they were the only two either. So, where does that put you?

Simon gave two loaded alternatives and asked that a choice be made between. It was a trick question.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, August 28, 2006 2:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Why do you have to read so much into it when those things don't necessarily exist (nor does the evidence support it).

Huh?

Do you agree with my interpretation that his point is that religion and logic are mutually exclusive? Did I read too much into that?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CAUSAL

Monday, August 28, 2006 2:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

I refuse to select one of Simon's two alternatives because they are quite clearly not the only two alternatives--that being the case, I select neither and point out the fallacy instead.

Well Simon never said that they were the only two either. So, where does that put you?

In a very Book-ish place, I suppose (punny, punny!) Can I assume that you said that with the same sneer that he did?

I have a to agree with others: Simon gave two alternatives and asked me to pick one. That's the very definition of false dilemma. He didn't give any alternative, he just said, "Pick one". And the thing of it is, when you're debating logic, the argument is the point! Logic revolves around making valid arguments. A valid argument (philosophically speaking) is one in which the conclusions are guaranteed to be true, if the propositions are true ( http://www.iep.utm.edu/v/val-snd.htm ). Note that there's nothing about the actual truth of the propositions in there. Another way to put it is that an argument is valid when: the conclusions would follow necessarily from the premises IF the premises were true. Here's a logically valid argument: 1) If the moon is made of green cheese, pigs can fly; 2) the moon is made of green cheese; therefore, 3) Pigs can fly. This argument is valid because IF the premises were true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. It seems pretty obvious that they are both false--but if they were both true, then we'd have flying pigs. So one way to defeat someone's argument is to show that his argument is invalid on some point. Simon's argument was invalid (regardless of whether the premises were true) because it committed a fallacy: false dilemma. If Simon feels his premises are true, then he needs to use them in a valid argument; if not, the conclusion does not follow, regardless of the truth of the premises. For example: 1) The nation of Spain has a city called Madrid; 2) Madrid is a city in the state of Iowa; therefore, 3) Iowa must be a part of Spain. Both those premises are true. There is a city in Spain called Madrid, as well as a city in Iowa called Madrid. So why doesn't it follow that Iowa is part of Spain? Because of the fallacy of equivocation: the "Madrid" of premise 1 is not the same as the Madrid of premise 2. So it's pointless to argue about the premises (for instance, throwing up maps of Spain, or listing Spanish provinces) because the argument isn't even valid to begin with! (Of course, this skips over the stronger concept of logical soundness--follow the link above if you want to read about that.)

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

CAUSAL

Monday, August 28, 2006 3:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Showing how his example is fallacious shows how his point is likewise fallacious.

Wrong. False does not necessarily equal false in this context

Actually, it's pretty interesting: you're both right in a way.

Sigma is right in that the identification of a fallacy doesn't mean that the conclusion (or even the premises) is false (that is, showing that his argument was invalid doesn't change the fact that the truth-values of his propositions are fixed). Pointing out invalidity does not make a proposition become false.

But CTS is right to ignore Simon's conclusion. Because as previously mentioned, truth values are fixed; our arguments don't change that. What arguments can do, though is give compelling reasons to believe that a truth value is either true or false. Arguments justify our beliefs about propositions. In a way, arguments are intended to help us figure out what those truth values are. But if an argument is fallacious, we have absolutely no business using it to form our beliefs, because it's not good reasoning. Take, for example, the following: 1) George W. Bush is the president; 2) As I type this it is night time in Iowa; therefore, 3) the Earth orbits the Sun. Now all three of those propositions are true, but you would be a fool to believe #3 on the basis of #1 and #2, because #3 does not follow from them. Similarly, I would be a fool to accept Simon's conclusion, because it does not follow from his premises. He might be right (and he might be wrong, of course, thanks to the Law of Excluded Middle), but I'm not justified in believing that he is right until he gives me a good argument that that is the case.

Quote:
we are not talking absolutes.

Actually, according to Simon, that's exactly what we're talking (or should be):

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
The only way for a belief in God to be part of logical thought is for evidence that absolutely proves the existence of an omnipotent being.

************************************************************************
Also, can I just take a moment to point out the deep, deep irony of having this debate given the way the thread started? (My apologies to CTS for hijacking the thread.)

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Sigma is right in that the identification of a fallacy doesn't mean that the conclusion (or even the premises) is false

I concede that false arguments does not necessarily prove his conclusion false. But in THIS case, there is a direct parellel between his example and his reasoning. He is, in essence, defining religion and logic in such a way that the two domains do not intersect. By showing that his definition is faulty in his example, we show that his definition is faulty, period.

Quote:
Also, can I just take a moment to point out the deep, deep irony of having this debate given the way the thread started? (My apologies to CTS for hijacking the thread.)

Hehe, yeah the irony. But no apologies needed. This thread is for all of us who have thinking problems (and Causal, don't take any offense, but you seem to have it worse than any of us).

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, August 28, 2006 8:24 AM

Um, you do realize the voluminous and hostile response to the concept he expressed indirectly supports the claim, yes ?

Just sayin...

-Frem

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE