You are using logic just for discussion.. and not for valid conclusions. Your faith decisions are based on emotions which by definition are opposite of logic which requires rational critical reasoning. You are too ashamed to admit the emotional aspect.. or you don’t realize it, or you are deliberately committing dishonesty. Your reply to Ghost 14 where you made tall claims of logically concluding your faith matters is one of the most dishonest post I have ever seen..
P.S. You did not prove me wrong. You proved the most competent scientist wrong who after hundreds of years of effort came to a consensus on the definition of a second..
Psyah believes humans can fly therefore humans can fly..
Psyah believes God exists, therefore God exists..
Premise contains superstition, wishful thinking and emotions… Conclusion could be probable.. But not certain irrespective of weak premise. It does not prove or disprove the existence of God.. Therefore irrelevant conclusions..
Are you telling me what I just told you? No, my requirement is not that my philosophical argument will give me TRUTH … That is wrong. I said … Philosophical tools provide certain aids in discourse for me … My faith is something that I declare with utmost belief and claim it to be TRUE, but my philosophical arguments allow me to demonstrate that my beliefs are probable or even possible. Can you get this? Why are you not getting this?
My faith is not based on logical reasoning, it is supported by it though … Sheesh …
**> (A) Belief
Test (logically, empirically, etc)
Pass?
Yes
(B) Stronger Belief
** Put B into A then Loop
Your construct is unlike the constructs that I have developed - I suggest you take a course in logic … Obviously untrained.
To complete the silly analogy you have given …
psyah believes humans can fly - If they can fly then then we will see them with their feet off ground for a period longer than that allowed by gravity plus air resistance if they were to simply jump. Since we cannot see them do this yet, we can say that psyah’s belief is unlikely to be true.
As long as you take a disconnect from emotions, superstitions, wishful thinking.. No logical discourse can take place. Get rid of your prejudices, open your mind.. And then indulge in such exercise. Until then you are just a mullah disguised as failed philosopher..
All I am doing is showing you using logic that my ‘faith’ cannot be proven false and that it can be shown to be possible or even probable. However, you keep saying that no logical discourse can take place as long as I have faith which is totally untrue.
Arabic mantiq (a term etymologically related to nutq, “utterance”). In the Quran, mantiq is described as a means for justification and the expression of truth, hence connected with the ancient Greek logos. Is technically used to designate a science of logic adapted from Aristotle and the Neoplatonists. Was called a science of balance by al-Tahanawi (eighteenth century) because it is used to weigh arguments. For Ibn Sina (d. 1037 ), it designated rules for passing from the known to the unknown in the acquisition of knowledge. Was extended to an intuitive or speculative arrival at the truth and then adapted to the mystical illuminationist philosophy (hikmet al-ishraq). Some grammarians (ninth century onward) highlighted logic’s dependence on its linguistic or civilizational contexts, a view later held by Ludwig Wittgenstein (d. 1951 ).
Example of logical tools used to extract information from the Qur’an:
Verse 2:2: Sahih International
This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah -
Logically we deduce that
Qur’an is being equated with No doubt i.e. certainty …
It is also saying that it guides the class of people who are conscious of Allah …
Therefore by deduction we can say that The Qur’an alludes to saying there is no doubt that people who are conscious of Allah will be guided to Islam if they read it.
So this is a claim … We can ask … is it really true that people who are conscious of God are guided to Islam after reading the Qur’an … We can see that this claim is true, by finding three or more people … Because in Arabic it employs the plural … which is at least 3 …
Although for those who are not conscious of God must admit that it is certainly true that Believers are drawn to faith through this book.
So there is now information that we can test and information that is inaccessible.
How the Qur’an influences the believers who read it … Is testable …
The idea of Allah existing … We can do nothing with it logically neither confirm it nor negate it.
Your presupposition, is that God exists, which is illogical because that is the subject of the debate. If we are to determine whether the answer is A or B, we can’t start with the assumption that A is true.
We used to assume the bolded part. Then experiments showed that the above wasn’t true so we changed our ideas about time. We determined that light is the thing that’s constant, and time bends around light. General Relativity further extends this idea. It is not simply time that bends around light, but space also bends around matter, which is what we call gravity. You see how experiments changed our beliefs?
This is ridiculous. Experiments show that time **does **bend in space. In contrast to scripture, I cannot argue with a religious person about Islam. It is literally in their belief to consider someone who is an atheist to be someone they should avoid. That is not being open to change. That is the opposite of scientific discourse.
No, my requirement is not that my philosophical argument will give me TRUTH … That is wrong. I said … Philosophical tools provide certain aids in discourse for me … My faith is something that I declare with utmost belief and claim it to be TRUE, but my philosophical arguments allow me to demonstrate that my beliefs are probable or even possible. Can you get this? Why are you not getting this?