I do not believe that "a true religion" can be faulted ... by definition "true" is "not false" ... I can go in to that argument also, but I need yazdi to understand that I never claim proof - I use logic as a tool for discussion in these matters.
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..
you should refer to first part of post #176 where you has been proven wrong.
I have already nominated you for Nobel Prize..
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..
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..
I'm not arguing about the religion ... It is fair to say that if both parties who are Muslim are both believers and believe that Islam is true ... If both sides are in agreement of a matter then to go about justifying it is pointless. The next question that stems from this is "how we believe our beliefs to be true" ... which is the real argument here.
I'm not saying my religion is true because I use logic ... I am saying my understanding of my "true religion" is better because I employ logic and other forms of reasoning to understand it. Each time I find my understanding improves according to those rules I also find it crystalises a stronger faith in me in my already assumed "true religion" ... but there is more to it than that ... I also find on reflection that my religion already sets the premise of how I am to understand it which gives me the impression of a miraculous scripture ...
I do not believe that "a true religion" can be faulted ... by definition "true" is "not false" ... I can go in to that argument also, but I need yazdi to understand that I never claim proof - I use logic as a tool for discussion in these matters.
Irrelevant Conclusions, example:
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.
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..
The highlighted sentence shows you have limited knowledge - ahem ... google uncle knowledge of the subject.
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..
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..
Peace yazdi
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.
For the record - Presuppositions in a premise are allowed for an argument to be logically valid.
How about this for a logical construct?
*If apples are fruit, and fruit are edible, then it follows that apples are edible.
*
Then the test/reflection (after eating an apple) statement follows:
Since apples are edible, they must be fruits and fruits are edible.
There are two premises here, one is true the other is not "always" true. However the conclusion only entertains the aspects of the truth within the array of possible truths and untruths. Until we find a fruit a that is inedible we can continue to postulate that "fruits are edible" ...
As you can see premises constructed with the preceding word IF are all presuppositions ...
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.
Well there is a simple answer to the time dilation example. Its based on our technology. **We assume that our method of telling time holds up in all environments correct? **What if that is not true? What if our methods for telling time are in fact inaccurate and inefficient and that we will develop technology more finally tuned to show that time does not slow down in space? Would that not throw out the entire point of being proven without a doubt?
With regard to scripture and science. Lets take time dilation as an example, as I have stated it is based on our current format for testing time. But we believe that our method is inherently accurate and without flaw correct? The same can be said for scripture. Those who believe, believe that the scripture is true and based on that notion what is said in religion is accurate. As for the question of questioning scripture, that is incorrect. Just like with individuals who questioned Einstein others do question religious texts and their edicts. The difference science acts as it is a realm of fact though there is a great deal that can not be proven or is proven based on underlying assumptions which are constantly proven, rewritten or disproved.
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?