|
|
Post by Jacob on Dec 3, 2009 23:45:04 GMT -5
You can't logically define logic.
The idea of logic itself is illogical.
As you said wiki it and so I did,
The first is drawing general conclusions from specific examples
Where are there examples showing that logic itself is logical and always right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Dec 4, 2009 0:01:51 GMT -5
I never said logic was always right, I said it's never wrong.
something that is illogical can be wrong
|
|
|
|
Post by alastairjohnjack on Dec 4, 2009 0:08:47 GMT -5
I disagree, why should something illogical be wrong? Why can't something that is logical be wrong?
I've already stated an example showing that while I had a logical explanation, I was actually wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacob on Dec 4, 2009 0:12:52 GMT -5
I see what you're saying, something logical can't be wrong because technically logic would be an opinion.But who's to say someone's body healing by a coincidence(just a general statement) is logical.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 4, 2009 0:13:31 GMT -5
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Things do not happen without a reason.
My definition of a miracle is an event etc. that glorifies God.
(that's the best I can do as far as an answer)
Side Note:
I do not believe in Hume's definitions of a miracle- "a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent."
So, I do not believe that miracles can violate the laws of nature. I see that as a ridiculous statement. The laws of nature are inviolable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Dec 4, 2009 0:14:42 GMT -5
I disagree, why should something illogical be wrong? Why can't something that is logical be wrong? I've already stated an example showing that while I had a logical explanation, I was actually wrong. because you're arguing definitions logic is rooted in truth and facts. 2+2 can't equal 5 but my definition of a word can differ from yours, the bottom line is logic is factual and definitions are not factual, they are open to personal interpretation |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 4, 2009 0:16:34 GMT -5
2+2 may not always equal 4. It just does most of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacob on Dec 4, 2009 0:18:54 GMT -5
I disagree, why should something illogical be wrong? Why can't something that is logical be wrong? I've already stated an example showing that while I had a logical explanation, I was actually wrong. because you're arguing definitions logic is rooted in truth and facts. 2+2 can't equal 5 but my definition of a word can differ from yours, the bottom line is logic is factual and definitions are not factual, they are open to personal interpretation What's the definition of logic? |
|
|
|
Post by alastairjohnjack on Dec 4, 2009 0:20:32 GMT -5
Logic may be based around truth and facts, but it is also based around one's own reasoning. Humans by their nature, do not and can not know everything - which results in flawed logic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Dec 4, 2009 0:22:41 GMT -5
see now we're arguing the definition of logic
this is a perfect example of what I'm saying.
before argumentation, you must establish and agree upon the definition of any word relevant to the argument
flawed logic isn't logic, it's a fallacy
logic is all humans have to go by, it is truth preserving
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacob on Dec 4, 2009 0:28:48 GMT -5
If we agree upon a definition, depending how we define it,one side is going to be better than the other.So we can't define logic.So therefore this thread is 50/50 on actual truth.So we have no reason to continue arguing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 4, 2009 0:31:03 GMT -5
a little off topic but a great documentary: (though kinda long since there's 10 parts to it) argument is pretty pointless most of the time |
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Dec 4, 2009 0:32:03 GMT -5
I don't know what the hell you're saying but yes argument is pretty pointless most of the time, especially when it boils down to faith vs. logic
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacob on Dec 4, 2009 0:34:24 GMT -5
I'm saying we could define logic one way that would make you right and define logic another way that would make you wrong.But since we won't agree on a definition because that's based on point of view, there is no argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Dec 4, 2009 0:43:06 GMT -5
I love circular logic!
|
|
